i!         ii 


THE   NAME ^5 


III  t  it  HI  1 1  1 1  It  nut 


W I  LLl/^M, SHAKES 
■liiiiiiiiiif'''  '    ^''''''''^ 


iniluninilinnniiHI  IUhI  ilnlHn  lUHiU  Im  n  inMnKI       1 1 1 


Dim    ir^nv 


I 


M 


tt'"- 


?^ 


L 


THE  NAME  OF 
WILLIAM  SHAKESPEARE 


BY  THE   SAME  AUTHOR 


A  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  SAMUEL 
TAYLOR  COLERIDGE.  With  por- 
trait. Edition  limited  to  three  hundred 
copies  printed  from  type,  and  a  large- 
paper  edition  of  thirty  copies. 
Regular  Edition  ....  $  4.00  7iet. 
Large-paper  Edition   .     .     .        10.00  net. 

EARLY     REVIEWS     OF     ENGLISH 
POETS.     With  Introduction  and  Notes. 

Regular  Edition $1.20  »e/. 

Library  Edition 2.00  net. 


THE  NAME  OF 


WILLIAM  SHAKESPEARE 


A  STUDY   IN   ORTHOGRAPHY 


BY 


JOHN   LOUIS   HANEY,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF     ENGLISH     PHILOLOGY,    CENTRAL    HIGH    SCHOOL,    PHILADELPHIA; 
RESEARCH    FELLOW,    UNIVERSITY   OF   PENNSYLVANIA 


'     J     1  11}       1       '    1  i' 

)->3  11  1  ^      >      t 


\       1       ^       \  '    1     1       '     1    1      \      \'      1  > 

>  1  '  11  '  3J  >        'j  1    1    >     J   1   3      1    >    : 


1  1      1 1  • j3  '     •         • ,'        '    > 


J      3  , 

1      t      1  11 

113  11 

3  1       3  1    3    1 

13  3             1 


1^\ 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  EGERTON   PRESS 

1906 


This  edition  is  limited  to  seven  Iiundred  and 
fifty  copies  printed  from  type  and  numbered. 


No 


3.0-. 


c    c  c  t 
c  t  c   c  c 


*^    c    t  c       c      t 
S*^       "^      C    c     c        c     t    * 


tct    cccccc 


■  c  c     t    c  c  c 


Pre^s  of 

Tmc  New  Era  Printing  Comp/nv 

Lancaster,  Pa. 


no 


TO 

MY   FRIEND    AND    COLLEAGUE 

PROFESSOR   ERNEST   LACY 


33S649 


PREFACE 

It  is  useless  to  dismiss  the  orthography  of  Shake- 
speare's name  as  a  trivial  matter.  We  may  spell 
Lyly,  Wycliffe  and  a  half-score  of  other  names  as 
we  please,  but  there  will  be  no  peace  in  literary 
realms  so  long  as  a  single  critic  or  scholar  of  repute 
persists  in  employing  any  variation  in  the  name  of 
our  greatest  poet.  The  general  reader,  unaware 
of  the  fact  that  Shakspeare  and  Shakespear  still 
have  their  champions,  may  imagine  that  the  contro- 
versy has  narrowed  down  to  a  determination  of  the 
relative  merits  of  Shakespeare  and  Shakspere.  All 
four  of  these  forms  are  still  used,  though  the  first 
two  are  obsolescent  and  there  will  be  few  to  mourn 
their  departure. 

At  this  day  it  would  be  folly  to  consider  the  form 
Shakspere  as  a  dangerous  rival  of  the  more  popu- 
lar Shakespeare.  With  all  respect  for  the  few 
scholars  who  still  advocate  its  use  as  the  poet's 
speUing  of  his  own  name,  we  can  only  repeat,  prob- 
ably for  the  one  hundredth  time,  that  there  are 
more  trustworthy  guides  at  hand  than  the   five 

vii 


viii  Preface 

wretched  scrawls  which  a  reluctant  world  is  con- 
strained to  accept  as  the  autographs  of  its  greatest 
poet.  The  champions  of  Shakespeare  have  repeat- 
edly cited  the  precedents  for  that  form;  they  have 
dwelt  on  the  fact  that  none  previous  to  1780  and 
few  since  then  have  cast  their  decision  for  Shak- 
spere;  they  have  emphasized  the  futility  of  seeking 
to  change  the  authoritative  spelling  upon  the  mea- 
ger evidence  of  five  signatures  which  the  Shakspere- 
ites  themselves  admit  they  cannot  read.  Madden 
and  Knight  based  their  contention  for  Shakspere 
mainly  upon  the  Florio  Montaigne  autograph, 
which  is  now  generally  rejected  as  spurious;  Dr. 
Furnivall  feels  certain  of  the  spelling  of  only  one 
of  the  five  genuine  signatures;  yet  scholars  who 
usually  submit  matters  in  dispute  to  the  closest  scru- 
tiny and  severest  tests  accept  the  shorter  spelling. 
It  is  significant  that  most  of  the  men  whose  opin- 
ions are  quoted  in  the  following  pages  do  not  con- 
sider uniformity  in  spelling  the  poet's  name  as  im- 
portant. 

This  study,  therefore,  should  not  be  regarded  as 
a  controversial  document  on  the  relative  merits  of 
the  various  spellings.  The  sentiment  of  the  learned 
world  is  so  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the  ac- 
cepted form  that  we  may  fairly  consider  the  ques- 


Preface  ix 

tion  settled  as  far  as  the  existing  evidence  admits 
of  any  satisfactory  conclusion.  The  following 
pages  seek  simply  to  present  in  convenient  form  the 
principal  facts  that  have  been  elicited  concerning 
the  origin  and  etymology  of  the  name  and  the  vicis- 
situdes of  its  orthography  at  various  periods  of  its 
history. 

None  will  deny  that  it  is  far  more  important  to 
study  and  to  seek  to  appreciate  the  greatness  of 
Shakespeare's  literary  utterance  than  to  wrangle 
(though  good-naturedly)  over  the  e's  and  a's  in 
his  name.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  widely  held  that 
the  present  lack  of  uniformity  In  that  matter  Is  dis- 
creditable to  the  English  world  of  letters,  and  that 
any  sincere  effort  to  correct  this  condition  cannot  be 
wholly  In  vain. 

I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  obligations  to  the 
scholars  and  librarians  who  have  replied  to  my 
request  for  information  concerning  their  prefer- 
ences In  the  orthography  of  the  name.  As  their 
replies  are  incorporated  In  the  text  I  trust  it  will 
not  be  necessary  to  enumerate  their  names  here. 
The  best  Shakespeare-mcn,  like  Dr.  Furness,  Mr. 
Sidney  Lee  and  Dr.  W.  J.  Rolfe,  were  already  on 
record  in  print  and  are  cited  at  the  proper  places  In 
the  study.     The  present  generation  of  Shakspere- 


X  Preface 

Ites,  with  the  notable  exception  of  Dr.  Furnivall, 
have  been  more  reticent  thus  far  in  print,  but  have 
stood  faithfully  by  their  colors  in  their  personal 
communications  to  me.  I  am  also  deeply  indebted 
to  Dr.  Lane  Cooper  of  Cornell  University  and  to 
Dr.  A.  S.  W.  Rosenbach  for  their  kindness  in  read- 
ing the  proof-sheets   and  suggesting  noteworthy 

changes. 

J.  L.  H. 

Central  High  School, 
Philadelphia. 


CONTENTS 


I.  The  Name  Shakespeare i 

II.  The  Stratford  Registers i3 

III.  Contemporar)'  Documents 15 

IV.  The  Registers  of  the  Stationers'  Company    .  24 
V.  The  Title  Pages  of  the  Qiiartos 27 

VI.  Contemporary  Tributes  and  Alhisions      ,      .  30 

VII.  The  Period  of  the  Folios 33 

VIII.  Modern  Editors  and  Critics        38 

IX.  The  Controvers\-  over  the  Orthography       .     .  45 


I.    The  Name  Shakespeare 

When  Mr.  Sidney  Lee  published  his  Life  of 
William  Shakespeare  in  1898  he  cited^  as  the  first 
recorded  holder  of  the  surname  a  John  Shake- 
speare who  in  1279  was  living  at  "  Freyndon."  In 
his  recent  revised  edition  (1905)  Mr.  Lee  men- 
tioned a  William  Shakespeare  or  "  Sakspere  "  who 
was  convicted  of  robbery  and  hanged  in  1248. 
The  latter,  by  the  lucky  accident  of  his  name  and 
by  virtue  of  his  crime,  thus  immortalized  himself 
and  takes  precedence  over  the  now  supplanted  John 
of  a  generation  later.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  John 
is  not  even  second.  Mr.  Lionel  CresswelP  has 
called  attention  to  a  Simon  Sakesper  In  Wantham 
in  1250,  and  Mrs.  C.  C.  Stopes*^  found  a  Simon 
Shakespeye  in  1260,  a  Geoffrey  Shakespeare  in 
1268,  and  a  Simon  Sakesper  in  1278.  She  men- 
tioned sundry  other  Shakesperes  and  Shakespeares 
(as  yet,  no  Shaksperes)  during  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury.    The  first  Warwickshire  holder  of  the  name 

*Lee,  Life  of  William  Shakespeare,   (1898)   p.  i;  revised  ed., 
(1905)   p.  I. 
^  Notes  and  Queries,  (Ninth  Series)   II,  p.  167. 
^  Stopes,  Shakespeare's  Family,  (1901)  pp.  4,  5. 

I 


2  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

was  a  Thomas  Shakespere  who  In  1359  was  a  fugi- 
tive felon,  apparently  no  more  given  to  virtue  than 
the  original  William. 

During  the  fifteenth  century  the  family  flourished 
widely.  The  name  occurs  frequently  in  the  Reg- 
ister of  the  Guild  of  St.  Anne  at  Knowle.  Between 
1457-1486  it  is  found  eight  times  on  the  Register, 
thrice  as  Shakespere,  once  each  as  Schakespeire, 
Chacsper,  Shakespeyre,  Schakspere  and  Shakspere. 
Other  variations  found  elsewhere  during  that  cen- 
tury are  Shakespeyr,  Shakesper  and  Schakesper. 

In  the  sixteenth  century  we  find  more  frequent 
record  of  the  Warwickshire  family  from  which  the 
poet  probably  sprang.  The  prevailing  forms  of  the 
name  are  Shakespeare  and  Shakespere,  with  an  oc- 
casional Shakspere.  The  only  variations  of  interest 
previous  to  1560  are  Shakespeer,  Shakyspere  and 
Schakespeir.  These  differences  in  the  names  of 
various  members  of  the  family  are  not  greater  than 
the  variations  found  in  the  spelling  of  an  indi- 
vidual name.  The  poet's  father  figured  frequently 
in  the  Stratford  registers  and  in  many  spellings, 
among  others  Shakyspere,  Shakspcyrc,  Shaksper, 
Shaxpeare,  Shaxspere,  Shakesper,  Shaxbere  and 
Shackespeere.-^     It  would  be  useless  to  multiply  ex- 

^  Slopes,  pp.  (52-58). 


-•*  The  Name  Shakespeare  3 

amples  of  Elizabethan  carelessness  In  the  orthog- 
raphy of  proper  names. 

At  first  sight  few  things  seem  more  obvious  than 
the  origin  of  the  name  Shakespeare  which  was 
borne  by  our  great  dramatist  and  by  no  one  of  any 
Importance  either  before  or  since;  yet  scholars 
have  given  much  thought  to  the  subject  In  their  vain 
attempts  to  avoid  the  obvious.  There  are  many 
problems  connected  with  Shakespeare  that  have 
given  rise  to  some  sort  of  controversy  and  among 
these  the  etymology  of  the  name  is  not  the  least. 
Joseph  Hunter,  In  his  Prolusions  Genealogical  on 
the  Family  of  Shakespeare'^  (1844),  summarized 
the  results  of  the  earlier  attempts  to  arrive  at  the 
origin  of  the  name  and  quoted  the  well-known  pas- 
sage from  Camden's  Remains  ( 1605)  :  "  Some  are 
named  for  what  they  commonly  carried, — as 
Palmer,  that  is,  Pllgrime,  for  that  they  carried 
palme  when  they  returned  from  Hierusalem;  Long- 
sword,  Broad-speare,  Fortescu,  that  is,  Strong- 
shield,  and  in  some  respect,  Break-speare,  Shake- 
speare, Shot-bolt,  Wagstaffe."  Hunter  found  It 
difficult  to  see  how  "  the  circumstance  that  he  shook 
a  spear  can  have  given  a  name  to  any  person." 

^Reprinted  (1845)  in  his  Neiu  Illustrations  of  the  Life,  Studies, 
and  Writings  of  Shakespeare,  I  (1-122). 


4  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Zachary  Bogan^  sought  to  account  for  it  as  an 
equivalent  for  soldier,  because  "the  custom  first, 
TidXXtcv, to  vibrate  the  spear  before  they  used  it,  was 
so  constantly  kept,  that  kyx^ffTzalo^,'^  a  shake-speare, 
came  at  length  to  be  an  ordinary  word,  both  In 
Homer  and  other  poets,  to  signify  a  soldier." 

In  1865  Professor  C.  F.  Koch  explained^  that 
the  elements  in  the  name  are  shake  and  spere.  The 
former  is  the  Anglo-Saxon  scacan  or  sceacan,  which 
developed  regularly  to  shake.  The  latter  was 
Anglo-Saxon  spere  which  became  spear.  Had  the 
name  occurred  in  Anglo-Saxon  it  would  have  been 
Scac-spere  or  Sceac-spere.  Koch  concluded  that 
the  correct  Middle  English  form  would  have  been 
Shakspere,  the  transition  form  Shakspeare,  which 
should  now  be  Shakspear.  It  is  evident  that  Koch 
reached  this  conclusion  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  first  syllable  remained  short. 

George  Russell  French  in  his  Shakspeareana 
Genealogka  (1868)  considered^  the  question  of 
the   surname   more   fully.      He   summarized   the 

1  Archaologia  Attica,  by  Francis  Rous,  with  additions  by 
Zachary  Bogan,   (1658)   p.  324. 

2Cf.  the  Latin  Hasta  Vibrans  and  the  Italian  Crollalanza. 

"Jahrbuch  fiir  roman.  urid  eng.  Sprache  und  Litteratur,  VI 
(322-326). 

*  French,  pp.  ( 347-3 5o). 


The  Name  Shakespeare  5 

notices  of  early  Shakespeares  and  extended  Hun- 
ter's list  to  fifty-six  actual  variations  in  the  spelling 
of  the  name.  Among  the  rarer  forms  in  his  list 
are  Schakespeire,  Sakespere,  Shakysper,  Shakes- 
spere,  Shaxkespere,  Shackspare  and  Shaxpeer. 

In  1872  Mr.  Alexander  J.  Ellis  wrote  a  most 
useful  letter  to  the  Athenanum^  on  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  Shakespeare's  name.  He  said  that  in  his 
Early  English  Pronunciation  he  had  uniformly 
spelled  the  poet's  name  Shakspere,  because  so  far 
as  he  could  read  the  acknowledged  signatures,  this 
was  what  the  letters  meant.  He  showed  that  the 
pronunciation  by  the  poet's  contemporaries  might 
be  represented  as  Shahkspair,  but  as  we  do  not 
attempt  to  reproduce  Elizabethan  pronunciation  in 
reading  the  plays  we  need  hardly  imitate  it  in  pro- 
nouncing the  name.  We  are  right  in  calling  the 
poet  Shaikspeer,  but  Shackspeer  was  as  Impos- 
sible In  the  poet's  day  as  In  our  own,  though  it 
might  have  been  Shahkspair  with  a  short  Italian 
a}      As  for  the  various  endings  -spere,  -speere, 

'  Athenatim,  1872,  II,  p.  207. 

*  Dr.  Furnivall,  under  date  of  January  26,  1906,  wrote  me  as  fol- 
lows: "  I  feel  that  the  main  reason  why  folk  prefer  the  weak  form 
Shakespeare  to  the  strong  form  Shakspere  is  the  general  ignor- 
ance of  the  pronunciation  of  a  in  his  time,  and  the  belief  that  he 
and  his  contemporaries  pronounced  it  long  and  soft,  like  we  do 


6  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

-speare,  -speer  and  -spear,  they  might  all  have  rep- 
resented the  same  sound  in  the  sixteenth  century.^ 

Dr.  C.  M.  Ingleby  in  1877  discussed  the  mean- 
ing of  the  surname-  and  gathered  a  few  of  the 
more  curious  and  far-fetched  etymologies  that  had 
been  suggested.  Thus,  Dr.  R.  S.  Charnock,  dis- 
approving of  the  "spear-shaking"  theory,  at- 
tempted by  a  liberal  interpretation  of  philological 
law  to  trace  the  name  to  Sigisbert  ("  renowned  for 
victory").  Having  triumphantly  accomplished 
the  transition  through  the  forms  Sigsbert,  Sigsber, 
Siksper,  Shiksper,  Shaksper  and  Shakspere,  he  ad- 
mitted that  he  had  not  found  the  form  Sigisbert, 
but  there  was  a  Sigibert,  a  Sigismerus  and  a  Sigis- 

'  make,'  instead  of  sharp,  like  we  do  '  ah,  father,  Shah.'  If  peo- 
ple realized  that  S.'s  name  was  pronounced  '  Shahkspare '  they'd 
more  readily  give  up  their  modern  '  Shakespeer.'  " 

'  The  Century  Dictionary,  which  prefers  the  spelling  Shakspere, 
indicates  the  pronunciation  as  Shak'sper,  originally  Shak'sper. 
Now  the  latter  corresponds  phonetically  to  Shackspeer,  which, 
according  to  Ellis,  was  impossible.  It  is  not  easy  to  determine 
how  the  spelling  which  the  Century  advocates  could  have  resulted 
in  the  modern  pronunciation  which  the  Century  accepts.  (See 
Nares'  Glossary,  p.  784.)  Moreover,  among  its  variant  spellings, 
the  Century  Dictionary  includes  Shaxper,  of  which  no  living 
person  would  be  guilty,  and  omits  Shakspeare,  which  had  for  a 
time  a  most  respectable  following.  See  p.  42.  The  Standard- 
Dictionary  places  Shakspeare  second  among  its  variants. 

'^Ingleby,  T/ie  Man  and  The  Book,  pp.   (12-21). 


'  The  Name  Shakespeare  7 

mund.-^  A  Robert  Ferguson  further  enlightened^ 
the  world  by  suggesting  the  actual  Old  German 
name  Sigispero,  from  which  he  assumed  a  form 
'SIgisper  and  said,  rather  naively:  "now  though 
the  change  from  Sigisper  into  Shakspere  would 
scarcely  be  justified  on  etymological  principles,  it 
might  be  accounted  for  by  the  continual  inclination 
to  twist  names  Into  something  like  a  meaning." 
Dr.  Charnock  scorned  this  point  of  view.^  Shortly 
after  this,  another  correspondent,  who  took  good 
care  to  conceal  his  identity  under  the  initials  R.  T. 
A.,  suggested^  that  the  name  "  no  doubt  originated 
In  the  Norman  or  French  edition  of  the  double 
beloved-disciple  name  (Jacques-pierre,  James-peter, 
lakespear)  of  which  it  is  composed,  the  initial  J 
being  pronounced  sh,  as  In  many  other  Instances." 
Still  unconvinced.  Dr.  Charnock  ventured  another 
guess^  that  the  name  would  corrupt  from  Shachs- 
burh  (otherwise  Isaacsbury)  whence  a  possible 
Semitic  origin  for  the  poet.  Dr.  Charles  Mackay,  ^ 
Inspired  by  the  extensive  Celtic  nomenclature  of 

^ Notes  and  Queries,  (Second  Series)   IX,  p.  459   (i860). 

^Ibid..  X,  p.  15   (i860). 

^  Ibid.,  X  (122-123). 

Uhid.,  XI,  p.  86   (1861). 

Ubid.,  (Fifth  Series)   II,  p.  405   (1874). 

^  AthencEum,  1875,  II,  p.  437. 


8  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Warwickshire,  refused  to  credit  a  Saxon  origin  for 
the  name  of  Shakespeare.  He  traced  it  to  the 
Celtic  Schacspeir  meaning  "dry  shanks"  (cf. 
Sheepshank  and  Cruikshank).  An  undoubted 
humorist,  signing  himself  Jabez,  would  have  none 
of  these  derivations.  He  clung  to  the  hope^  that 
the  bard's  family  came  from  Italy,  and  that  the 
name  was  but  a  corruption  of  that  of  the  Florentine 
historian,  Lapus  Biragus.  As  Lapus  is  Florentine 
for  Jacob,  we  would  thus  have  Jacobsbirage, 
whence  through  Schacobspire  we  arrive  without 
much  violence  at  Shakspere.  Yet  some  people 
complain  that  etymology  is  dull  and  uninteresting! 
While  we  cannot  take  any  of  these  ingenious 
flights  very  seriously,  we  must  assume  a  different 
attitude  tovv^ard  the  correspondence  between  Dr. 
Henry  Bradley  and  Professor  A.  L.  Mayhew  in 
The  Academy  during  1887.  ^^  his  first  letter^ 
Dr.  Bradley  expressed  dissatisfaction  with  the  idea 
that  the  name  originally  meant  "  spear-shaker." 
It  was  more  probably  "  an  etymologising  distor- 
tion of  something  more  in  accordance  with  the 
analogies  of  English  family  nomenclature."  He 
suggested   its    derivation    from   the    Anglo-Saxon 

^ Notes  and  Queries,  (Fifth  Series)  V,  p.  352  (1876). 
2  The  Academy,  XXXI,  pp.  94,  168,  183,  203,  and  222. 


The  Name  Shakespeare  9 

name  Seaxberht,  and  that  the  well-known  form 
Shaxberd  instead  of  being  a  blunder  was  a  collo- 
quial survival  of  the  original  name.  To  this  Pro- 
fessor Mayhew  humourously  replied  that  he  could 
not  take  Mr.  Bradley  seriously  in  this  suggestion, 
but  assuming  that  he  is  serious,  Mayhev/  cited 
numerous  analogies  to  the  spear-shaking,  such  as 
Wagspere,  Breakspear,^  etc.  He  showed  that  by 
"popular  etymology"  Seaxberht  would  have  be- 
come not  Shakspere  but  Saxbert.  In  his  second 
letter  Dr.  Bradley  confessed  that  he  was  in  earnest. 
He  questioned  the  validity  of  Mayhew's  parallels 
and  declared  his  belief  that  "popular  etymology" 
is  "  capable  of  effecting  any  phonetic  change,  how- 
ever abnormal,  short  of  the  absolute  destruction  of 
all  resemblance  to  the  original  form."  Professor 
Mayhew  then  noted  that  whereas  Shakespeare  as 
a  name  Is  not  known  before  the  fifteenth^  century, 
Seaxberht  Is  a  pre-Conquest  form,  and  requested 
Dr.  Bradley  to  explain  the  "chasm  of  centuries" 
between  them.  The  discussion  ended  with  Dr. 
Bradley's  third  letter,  In  which  he  still  adhered  to 
his  theory. 

^  Mr.  N.  J.  Hone,  in  Notes  and  Queries,  (Tenth  Series)  V 
(89-90)  has  recently  (1906)  cited  an  instance  where  the  poet's 
grandfather  is  mentioned  as  Richard  Shakicespere,  and  where,  in 
one  entry,  the  name  Shalcstaff  is  substituted. 

^We  have  seen  that  it  is  found  in  the  thirteenth  century. 


lO  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Recently  Professor  John  W.  Hales  interpreted^ 
the  name  as  an  epithet  for  one  who  threatened  at- 
tack but  who  did  not  fulfill  his  threat — a  sort  of 
drawcansir,  whose  hand  was  always  on  his  weapon, 
but  was  chary  of  using  it.^  He  fully  illustrated 
and  fortified  his  position  by  quotations  from  the 
classics  and  from  contemporary  Elizabethan  works. 
There  undoubtedly  was,  as  he  said,  "  a  generation 
ago  a  great  disposition  to  mistrust  the  obvious  in 
etymology."  With  due  respect  to  the  vagaries  of 
popular  etymology,  there  Is,  however,  no  valid 
reason  at  this  time  for  dissenting  from  Professor 
Hales'  conclusion  that  the  name  was  simply  a  com- 
pound of  shake  and  spear,  whether  first  applied 
jocularly  or  not.  This  "  common-sense  "  conclu- 
sion received  the  approval  of  the  Rev.  W.  W. 
Skeat  as  early  as  1874,  when  he  deprecated^  some 
of  the  absurd  guesses  then  being  made.  Mr.  Sid- 
ney Lee^  dismisses  the  matter  briefly  with  the  obser- 
vation that  "  the  surname  had  originally  a  martial 

^  Athenaum,  1903,  II   (230-232). 

2  Charles  W.  Bardsley,  in  Notes  and  Queries,  (Fifth  Series)  II, 
p.  2,  and  in  his  Dictionary  of  English  and  JFelsh  Surnames,  re- 
garded the  name  as  originally  the  nickname  of  some  officer  of 
the  law,  and  thinks  that  it  was  derisive,  just  as  Wag-feather, 
Wag-tail,  Shake-lance  and  Shake-shaft. 

^ Notes  and  Queries,  (Fifth  Series)  II,  p.  444. 

*Lee,  Life  of  Shakespeare   (1905),  p.  1. 


The  Name  Shakespeare  1 1 

significance,  implying  capacity  in  the  wielding  of 
the  spear."^ 

,  '  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  add  that  the  Rev.  Henry  Barber,  in  his 
British  Family  Names  (and  ed.,  1903)  seeks  to  connect  Shake- 
speare with  the  Norman-French  Saquespee,  which  occurs  in  the 
surname  Sakespee  as  early  as  1195. 


II.    The  Stratford  Registers 

The  registers  of  such  a  town  as  Stratford-on- 
Avon  during  the  days  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I 
are  necessarily  of  scant  authority  in  determining 
the  correct  orthography  of  the  poet's  name.  Their 
characteristic  variations  are  sufficient  to  neutralize 
the  value  of  their  evidence,  save  as  to  the  fact  that 
at  Stratford  the  first  syllable  of  the  name  was  prob- 
ably pronounced  short. 

In  the  baptismal  record^  of  the  eight  children  of 
John  Shakespeare — Jone,  Margareta,  Gulielmus, 
Gilbertus,  Jone,  Anna,  Richard  and  Edmund — the 
name  is  spelled  Shakspere,  except  in  the  case  of 
Richard,  who  is  entered  as  the  "  sonne  to  Mr.  John 
Shakspeer."  The  poet's  own  children,  Susanna 
(1583)  and  the  twins  Hamnet  and  Judith  (1584) 
are  also  baptized  under  the  name  Shakspere.  The 
record  of  the  burial  of  Hamnet  (August  11,  1596) 
again  uses  Shakspere,  but  at  the  death  of  Shake- 
speare's father  in  1601  the  spelling  becomes  Shak- 
spear.2 

'These  entries  are  printed  in  Halliwell-Phillipps'  Outlines  of 
the  Life  of  Shakespeare,  II  (51-52)  ;  also  in  D.  H.  Lambert's 
Shakespeare  Documents,  pp.  i,  3,  5,  14,  etc. 

^Thus  Lambert;  Halliwell-Phillipps  reads  it  Shakspeare. 

12 


^'  The  Stratford  Registers  13 

The  burial  of  the  poet's  youngest  brother  is  re- 
corded on  the  registers  of  St.  Saviour's,  Southwark, 
In  1607  as  "Edmund  Shakespeare,  a  player." 
Thus,  when  we  turn  to  London,  we  at  once  find  the 
long  form.  Returning  to  Stratford,  we  find  John 
Hall  in  1607  marrying  Susanna  Shaxpere;  in  1608 
Shakespeare's  mother  was  buried  as  "  Mayry 
Shaxpere,  wydowe";  in  16 12  occurred  the  burial 
of  Gilbertus  Shakspeare  and  in  16 13  that  of 
Richard  Shakspeare. 

On  February  10,  16 16,  Thomas  Queeny  mar- 
ried Judith  Shakspere,  and  a  few  months  later 
comes  the  most  interesting  of  the  burial  records: 

1 616,  Aprlll  25.     Will.  Shakspeare,  gent.^ 
The  same  spelling  is  used  in  recording  the  burial  of 
the  poet's  widow  in  1623. 

While  in  this  mortuary  strain,  it  is  well  to  men- 
tion that  the  inscription  cut  upon  Shakespeare's 
monument  in  Trinity  Church,  Stratford  spells  the 
name  Shakspeare.^  On  the  widow's  epitaph  it 
becomes  Shakespeare — the  only  time  that  the  gen- 
erally accepted  spelling  is  found  in  these  records  at 

'Thus  Lambert;   Halliwell-Phillipps  reads  Shakspere. 

^  Incorrectly  given  as  Shakespeare  by  Lambert,  and  by  Sidney 
Lee  in  the  early  editions  of  his  Life  of  Shakespeare;  corrected  in 
the  fifth  edition  (1905).  Halliwell-Phillipps  gives  fac-similes  of 
both  inscriptions.     See  Outlines,  I,  pp.  284,  288. 


14  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Stratford,  though  It  Is  noteworthy  that  the  short 
form  Shakspere,  which  Is  so  frequently  upheld  as 
the  "Stratford  spelling"  occurs  but  once  in  these 
records  after  1600. 


III.    Contemporary  Documents 

It  is  fair  to  assume  that  a  legal  document  in 
most  parts  of  the  civilized  world  to-day  would  be 
a  reasonably  safe  guide  in  determining  the  orthog- 
raphy of  a  proper  name,  yet  this  was  far  from  true 
in  Elizabethan  days.  Not  only  was  the  spelling 
unsettled  to  the  degree  of  utter  indifference,  but  the 
scribes  who  drew  up  the  documents  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  introduce  two  or  three  variants  of  a  name 
into  a  single  document.  Irregularities  that  would 
now  lead  to  grave  complications  were  then  toler- 
ated and  widely  practiced. 

In  the  following  summary  of  the  spelling  of  the 
poet's  name  in  the  more  important  documents  as- 
sociated with  him,  the  orthography  given  by  Lam- 
bert and  by  Halliwell-Phillipps  has  been  regarded 
as  correct,  with  due  respect  for  other  writers  who 
have  reprinted  the  records  in  question.  One  or 
two  documents  concerning  John  Shakespeare  will 
afford  a  proper  starting-point. 

In  the  fine^  levied  on  John  Shakespeare  in  1575 
on  the  purchase  of  the  two  houses  in  Henley  Street 

*  Lambert,  Shakespeare  Documents,  no.  8. 

IS 


1 6  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

the  name  is  spelled  Shakespere;  the  same  is  true 
of  the  fine^  levied  in  1579  when  Shakespeare's 
parents  mortgaged  the  estate  at  Aston  Cantlowe. 
On  the  Episcopal  Register  of  Worcester  is  the  per- 
plexing record'-  of  the  dispensation  of  November 
27,  1582,  permitting  a  marriage  between  "  Wm. 
Shaxpere  et  Anna  Whateley  de  Temple  Grafton." 
Mr.  Sidney  Lee  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  license 
does  not  refer  to  the  poet  and  Anne  Hathaway. 
Many  modern  authorities  accept  it,  offering  various 
explanations;  at  any  rate,  the  spelling  of  the  names 
is  not  much  worse  than  that  of  the  marriage-bond 
of  the  following  day  on  the  same  register,  wherein 
the  parties  are  Willm  Shagspere  and  Anne  Hath- 
wey  of  Stratford. 

The  bill  of  complaint'^  brought  by  the  poet's 
father  against  John  Lambert  in  1589  respecting 
the  estate  at  Wilmecote  has  the  typical  irregulari- 
ties of  an  Elizabethan  document.  There  the  names 
of  John  and  William  Shackespere  occur  thus  some 
sixteen  times,  but  also  twice  as  Shackspere  and  once 
as  Shackspeare.  Thus  far  Stratford  and  environs. 
The  first  London  record  is  in  the  manuscript  ac- 

'  Lambert,  no.  9. 

^  Ibid.,  no.  II. 

^  Ibid.,  no.  15;  also  Halliwell-Phillipps,  II   (11-13). 


Contemporary  Documents  ij 

counts^  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber — a  mem- 
orandum of  payment  to  "  Willm  Kempe,  Willm 
Shakespeare  &  Rlcharde  Burbage  "  on  March  15, 
1595,  for  two  comedies  performed  before  the 
Queen.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  spelling  now 
generally  preferred  is  found  in  this  early  document, 
in  which  the  poet's  name  is  linked  with  those  of 
the  foremost  actors  of  his  time. 

In  the  Grant  of  Arms^  of  1596  to  John  Shake- 
speare the  name  appears  as  Shakespere  at  the  head 
of  the  document,  but  in  the  body  it  is  Shakespeare 
several  times.  The  same  spelling  is  observed  uni- 
formly in  the  fine^  levied  on  the  poet  at  Easter, 
1597,  on  the  purchase  of  New  Place.  The  spell- 
ings Shakspeere  (four  times)  and  Shakespere 
(twice)  are  found  in  the  papers'*  concerning  the 
estate  at  Wilmecote.  In  the  crude  letter^  of  the 
illiterate  Abraham  Sturley  to  his  brother-in-law 
Richard  Quiney  (January  24,  1598)  their  "  coun- 
triman  "  is  referred  to  as  "  Mr.  Shaksper,"  but  in 
the  more  notable  epistle  written  by  Quiney  to  the 
poet  on  October  25th  of  that  year,  the  address  is 

^  Lambert,  no.  25. 
'  Ibid.,  no.  30. 
'  Ibid.,  no.  32. 

*  Ibid.,  no.  35;  also  HalHvvell-Phillipps,  II   (14-17). 

*  Lambert,  no.  39. 


1 8  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

spelled  Shackespere.  The  same  unusual  spelling 
occurs  in  the  Stratford  records  in  a  Return^  of 
the  Quantities  of  Corn  and  Malt  held  by  the  Inhab- 
itants of  the  ward  in  which  New  Place  Is  situated 
(February  4,  1599). 

The  form  Shakespere  occurs  throughout  the 
confirmation"  of  the  Grant  of  Arms  to  John 
Shakespeare  in  1599  and  in  the  deed^  of  convey- 
ance of  over  one  hundred  acres  of  land  to  the 
poet  in  1602  by  William  and  John  Combe.  In  the 
same  year  the  frank  pledge^  by  which  Walter  Get- 
ley  surrendered  to  Shakespeare  the  premises  in 
Chapel  Lane,  Stratford,  reads  both  Shackespere 
and  Shakespere. 

In  the  Royal  Warrant^  Issued  for  a  Patent  au- 
thorizing the  theatrical  company  of  which  Shake- 
speare was  a  member  and  in  the  Patent  itself  (May 
17-19,  1603)  the  name  of  the  poet  is  spelled 
Shakespeare.  The  great  regularity  with  which  this 
form  prevails  In  most  documents  relating  to  his 
activity  as  playwright  and  actor  casts  additional 
suspicion  on  the  authenticity  of  the  accounts  of  the 

^  Lambert,  no.  53. 

^  Ibid.,  no.  55. 

•''  Ibid.,  no.  79;  also  Halliwell-Phillipps,  II  (17-19). 

*  Lambert,  no.  81. 

°  Ibid.,  no.  87. 


Contemporary  Documents  19 

Revels  at  Court^  wherein  the  name  occurs  repeat- 
edly as  Shaxberd.  When  in  1605  the  poet  ac- 
quired the  lease^  of  a  moiety  of  the  tithes  of  Strat- 
ford and  the  vicinity  his  name  appeared  eighteen 
times  as  Shakespear  and  twice  as  Shal^espeare.  In 
a  similarly  careless  document  ^concerning  the  Strat- 
ford tithes  the  name  occurs  once  as  Shakespere, 
once  as  Shakspeare  and  thrice  as  Shakespeare. 
The  form  Shakespere  is  found  six  times  in  the  foot'^ 
of  a  fine  levied  in  16 10  on  the  purchase  of  an  estate 
from  the  Combes. 

A  recently  discovered  reference  to  Shakespeare 
(announced  by  Mr.  Sidney  Lee  through  The  Lon- 
don Times)  shows  from  the  account  of  the  house- 
hold expenses  of  the  sixth  Earl  of  Rutland  the  pay- 
ment on  March  31,  16 13,  of  forty-four  shillings 
to  "  Mr  Shakespeare  "  and  a  like  sum  to  Richard 
Burbage  for  providing  his  Lordship  with  an  im- 
preso.  In  another  recent  discovery — the  bill  of 
complaint  of  April  15,  1615 — the  poet's  name  is 
spelled  Shakespere,  but  in  the  answer  to  the  bill 
(May  5,  1615)  it  is  Shakespeare.^ 

^Lambert,  no.  96  and  96a. 

^Ib'td.,  no.  99;  also  Halliwell-Phillipps,  II   (19-25). 

^Lambert,  no.  125. 

*Ibid.,  no.  127. 

^  Printed  by  Professor  C.  W.  Wallace  in  the  London  Standard 
on  October  i8th,  1905,  more  correctly  in  Englische  Studien, 
XXXVI   (56-63). 


20  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

In  this  connection  the  most  interesting  of  all 
extant  documents  are  unquestionably  the  three 
that  contain  the  authentic  signatures  of  the  poet. 
These  are  ( i )  the  deed  of  bargain  and  sale  of 
a  house  in  Blackfriars,  executed  on  March  lo, 
1613;  (2)  the  mortgage-deed  for  the  same  prop- 
erty, dated  on  the  following  day;  and  (3)  the 
will,  dated  March  25,  1616,  drawn  up  on  three 
sheets  with  the  poet's  autograph  at  the  foot  of 
each.  In  the  body  of  the  Blackfriars  deed,  as 
abridged  by  Lambert/  the  name  is  spelled  Shake- 
speare once  and  Shakspeare  four  times,  though 
Halliwell-Phillipps'  text^  of  the  indenture  enrolled 
in  the  Court  of  Chancery  has  Shakespeare  through- 
out. The  signature  is  usually  conceded  to  be 
Shakspere.  The  mortgage-deed  has  the  spelling 
Shakespeare  uniformly;  its  signature,  however, 
though  more  uncertain  than  the  other,  is  probably 
Shakspere  as  before. 

The  will  has  Shackspeare  in  the  body  of  the  doc- 
ument,^ but  the  three  signatures  have  been  variously 
interpreted.  They  are  all  accessible  in  fac-simile 
in  Mr.  Lee's  Life  of  Shakespeare  and  have  been 

^Lambert,  no.  136. 

2  Halliwell-Phillipps,  II  (31-34)- 

'  Lambert,  no.  145. 


Contemporary  Documents  21 

fully  discussed  in  the  revised  (1905)  edition  of 
that  book,  ^  The  first  signature  of  the  will  is  now 
so  badly  damaged  that  Mr.  Lee's  fac-simile  is  all 
but  useless;  a  more  satisfactory  engraving  made 
from  the  tracing  by  Steevens  in  1776  is  to  be  found 
in  various  works.  Most  authorities  have  read  it 
as  Shakspere.  The  second  autograph,  more  strag- 
gling than  the  first,  has  been  deciphered  as  Shak- 
spere, Shakspeare,  Shakspeere  and  even  Shack- 
speare.  The  third  Mr.  Lee  regards  as  undoubtedly 
Shakspeare — a  conclusion  reached  by  Steevens  and 
Malone  in  1776,  though  Malone  afterwards  be- 
lieved that  the  third  was  Shakspere  like  the  rest 
(as  he  read  them)  and  that  the  supposed  a  in  the 
second  syllable  resulted  from  a  tremor  of  the  poet's 
hand.  Sir  F.  Madden  in  1838  believed  that  all 
the  signatures  were  Shakspere. 

Since  that  time  the  most  interesting  discussion 
of  the  subject  was  the  paper  by  Dr.  F.  J.  Furni- 
vall.^  in  1895.  His  conclusions  were  that  the 
Blackfriars  deed  was  signed  Shakspere;  but  the 
mortgage  signature  was  Shakspear,  "  if  the  contrac- 
tion mark  over  the  e  is  meant  for  a,  as  it  probably 

^  Lee,  (revised  ed.)  pp.  276,  278,  282. 

2  Furnivall,  On  Shakspere's  Signatures,  in  Journal  of  the 
Society  of  Archivists  and  Autograph  Collectors.  No.  i.  June, 
1895- 


22  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

is."  As  for  the  will-signatures,  the  first  is  either 
Shockspere  or  Shakspere;  the  second  seems  to  be 
Shakspeere,  though  the  second  e  may  be  meant  for 
an  a\  the  third  is  either  Shakspeare  or  Shakespeare. 
Dr.  Furnivall  suggested  that  Shakespeare  was 
probably  sick  when  he  signed  the  will — a  view  in 
which  most  admirers  of  the  poet  will  be  glad  to 
concur.  He  goes  on:  "All  manuscript  or  first- 
hand men,  then,  who  judge  by  the  poet's  signatures, 
are  bound  by  four  instances  to  one  to  write  the  first 
syllable  of  our  great  dramatist's  name  as  '  Shak,' 
not  '  Shake,'  while  as  to  the  second  syllable,  they 
are  equally  bound  by  a  majority  of  three  to  two  to 
spell  it  '  spere,'  and  not  '  spear  '  or  '  speare.'  But 
there  are  not  many  manuscript  men  in  the  world; 
most  folk  are  printed-book  or  second-hand  men, 
and  they  say  they  don't  care  a  straw  for  our 
wretched  manuscripts.  They  swear  by  type;  and 
if  the  poet's  name  is  in  print,  then,  like  the  ballad, 
it  and  its  spelling  '  must  be  true.'  Shakspere's 
printers,  not  he  himself,  are  the  deciders  of  how  his 
name  should  be  spelt.  This  granted,  the  conclu- 
sion is  certain.  The  printed  spellings  of  Shak- 
spere's name  in  his  Poems,  his  Quartos,  his  contem- 
poraries' writings,  as  well  as  his  soon-successors, 
are  almost  always  Shakespeare.     The  reason,  of 


Contemporary  Documents  23 

course,  is  not  far  to  seek.     The  Elizabethan  time 
was  full  of  conceits  and  canting  terms;  and  to  all 
users  of  them,  the  sphtting  of  Shakspere's  name 
into  the  verb   'shake' — shown  by  the   fluttering 
bird  in  his  coat-of-arms — and  '  spear '  was  a  matter 
of  course.    .    .    .    For  myself,  I  am  a  manuscript 
man,  and  I  take  the  majority  of  Shakspere's  own 
signatures  to  be  worth  more  than  a  whole  ocean 
of  printers'  spellings  of  his  name.     Further,  I  like 
to  get  him  as  free  as  possible  from  the  London 
conceits  of  his  day.     I  don't  want  their  imperti- 
nences in  his  name,  though  I  have  to  put  up  with 
them  in  his  plays,  and  so  I  stick  to  Shakspere,  and 
leave  Shake-speare  to  the  second-handers — charm- 
ing fellows,  some  of  them,  but  too  fond  of  type." 
Unfortunately  for  Dr.   Furnivall's  theory,  the 
"  second-handers  "  cannot  help  noting  that  by  con- 
sidering the  syllables  separately  he  has  made  an  in- 
genious "four  to  one"  and  "three  to  two"  plea 
for  Shakspere,  though  he  himself  admitted  that 
only  one  of  the  signatures  is  beyond  a  doubt  Shak- 
spere.    If  he,  most  ardent  of  champions,  finds  a 
possible   Shakspear,    Shockspere,    Shakspeere   and 
Shakespeare  respectively  in  the  other  four  signa- 
tures,   the    unbelieving    "  second-handers "    must 
needs  remain  skeptical. 


IV.    The  Registers  of  the  Stationers'  Company 

We  should  hardly  look  in  the  records  of  the 
Stationers'  Company  for  any  authoritative  evi- 
dence upon  the  spelling  of  an  author's  name. 
Even  a  cursory  examination  of  Mr.  Arber's  monu- 
mental transcripts  of  the  registers  reveals  the  fact 
that  the  orthography  of  proper  names  Is  notori- 
ously careless.  Moreover,  in  the  case  of  Shake- 
speare the  name  itself  occurs  but  rarely,  and  when 
it  is  found,  the  expected  variations  minimize  the 
usefulness  of  such  evidence  in  the  present  discus- 
sion. These  evidences  may  be  gleaned  from  Mr. 
Arber's  edition  direct,  but  have  been  conveniently 
brought  together  elsewhere.^ 

The  earliest  Shakespearean  entries  are  uniformly 
anonymous,  so  far  as  authorship  is  concerned. 
These  include  Venus  and  Adonis  (1593),  Titus 
Andronicus  (1594),  Lucrece  (1594),  the  assign- 
ments oi  Venus  and  Adonis  ( i ^g^-i ^96) ,  Richard 

^  See  the  preliminary  pages  of  Dr.  Furnivall's  Some  300  Fresh 
Allusions  to  Shakspere  from  1594  to  1694  A.  D.,  published  by  the 
New  Shakspere  Society  (1886),  pp.  (xxvii-xxxvi)  ;  also  Halliwell- 
Phillipps'  Outlines,  I  (331-333)  ;  and  Lambert,  passim. 

24 


Registers  of  the  Stationers'  Company     25 

//  (1597),  Richard  III  (1597),  Henry  IV 
(1598),  The  Merchant  of  Venice  (1598),  the 
"staying"  of  As  You  Like  It,  Henry  V,  and 
Much  Ado  About  Nothing  (1600) ,  and  Henry  V 
(1600).  The  first  entry  In  which  Shakespeare's 
name  occurs  is  that  of  Much  Ado  About  Nothing 
and  Henry  IV,  Part  2  on  August  23,  1600,  which 
were  "  wrytten  by  master  Shakespere."^  Then 
follow  some  eight  anonymous  entries  between 
1 600-1 607,  until  on  November  26,  1607,  there  is 
entered  "  Master  William  Shakespeare^  his  his- 
torye  of  Kinge  Lear."  On  May  2,  1608,  the 
spurious  Yorkshire  Tragedy  is  entered  as  the  work 
of  Wyiliam  Shakespere,  and  on  May  20,  1609, 
there  IS  recorded  a  "  booke  called  Shakespeares 
Sonnettes." 

The  remaining  entries  are  anonymous  until  we 
reach  the  First  Folio,  which  Blount  and  Jaggard 
entered  as  "  master  William  Shakspeer's  Come- 
dyes,  Histories,  and  Tragedyes  "  on  November  8, 
1623.  Later  entries  are  of  less  interest.  In 
various  assignments  of  plays  previous  to  1640  we 
find  the  forms  Shackspere,  Shackspheere,  Shak- 
speare  and  Shakespeare. 

'  Both  Collier  and  Dyce  have  Shakespeare. 
2  Dr.  Furnivall  reads  Shakspeare. 


26  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

A  summary  of  the  doubtful  testimony  culled 
from  these  otherwise  extremely  useful  registers 
shows  that  the  name  of  Shakespeare  occurs  twelve 
times,  spelled  in  five  different  ways:  the  commonest 
form  is  Shakespeare,  which  is  found  five  times,  but 
Shakspere  does  not  occur  in  a  single  instance. 


V.    The  Title-pages  of  the  Quartos 

Under  ordinary  conditions  we  should  expect 
to  find  an  author's  name  correctly  spelled  on  the 
title-pages  of  his  works.  No  matter  how  illegible 
a  scrawl  a  man  will  acknowledge  as  his  autograph, 
we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  when  the  name 
stands  in  type  and  the  work  passes  under  the  au- 
thor's supervision,  it  will  be  spelled  in  accordance 
with  his  wishes.  Here,  however,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  documents  the  evidence  is  virtually  nullified 
by  the  fact  that  the  quartos  of  Shakespeare's  plays 
were  probably  all  piratical  ventures  undertaken 
without  the  dramatist's  sanction.  None  the  less 
there  is  one  bit  of  evidence  that  has  always  been 
deemed  trustworthy  by  the  majority  of  Shake- 
spearean scholars.  Shakespeare's  Venus  and  Adonis 
(1593)  and  Lucrece  (1594),  the  first-fruits  of  his 
poetic  muse,  were  issued  with  all  the  earmarks  of 
authority.  In  neither  case  does  the  name  of  the 
poet  appear  on  the  title-page,  but  each  is  dedicated 
to  the  Earl  of  Southampton  In  a  prefatory  letter 
signed  William  Shakespeare.  The  letters  are  not 
private   epistles  that  might  have   fallen   Into  the 

27 


28  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

hands  of  a  plratically-inclined  printer;  they  are 
both  written  for  publication.  To  question  the 
authority  of  these  Issues  would  be  absurd;  and  most 
men  will  admit  that  a  young  author  would  in  all 
probability  be  more  careful  of  the  orthography  of 
his  name  in  the  first  heir  of  his  invention  than  in  a 
series  of  atrocious  signatures  which  (presuming 
health  and  strength)  he  was  willing  to  write  so 
wretchedly  that  none  has  ever  been  able  to  read 
them  satisfactorily.  Under  the  existing  conditions, 
this  fact  alone  should  have  been  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish the  accepted  spelling  for  all  time ;  endorsed  as, 
it  is  by  every  sort  of  documentary  and  printed  evi- 
dence, it  is  difficult  to  see  what  excuse  the  variant 
forms  from  Shakspere  down  have  for  their  exist- 
ence. 

Mr.  D.  H.  Lambert  in  his  Shakespeare  Docu- 
ments (1904)  prints  all  the  important  titles  from 
1593  to  1622  to  the  number  of  fifty-six.  Of 
these,  five  are  editions  of  Venus  and  Adonis  and 
four  are  editions  of  Lucrece,  which  on  the  strength 
of  the  dedicatory  letter  may  fairly  be  claimed  for 
Shakespeare.  Twelve  of  the  quartos  (it  is  unnec- 
essary to  enumerate  them)  are  anonymous.  One 
of  the  1608  quartos  of  King  Lear  reads  Shak- 
speare;  two  others — Love's  Labour's  Lost  (1598) 


The   Title-pages  of  the  Quartos  29 

znd  The  Passionate  Pilgrim  (16 12)  have  Shake- 
spere.  This  accounts  for  twenty-four  of  the  quar- 
tos; the  remaining  thirty-two  all  spell  the  name 
Shakespeare  on  the  title-page — twenty-one  as  we 
write  it  to-day,  and  the  other  eleven  as  Shake- 
speare, with  the  characteristic  hyphen.^  To  this 
list  should  be  added  the  title-page  of  Ben  Jonson's 
E^ery  Man  in  his  Humour  (1598),  wherein 
"Will.  Shakespeare"  is  included  among  the  prin- 
cipal comedians,  and  of  Jonson's  Sejanus  (1616), 
which  names  "Will.  Shake-Speare "  among  the 
tragedians. 

It  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  pursue  a  point 
that  is  admitted  by  all — that  it  was  the  well-nigh 
universal  custom  of  the  printers  of  that  day  to  spell 
the  poet's  name  Shakespeare.  The  frequent  sepa- 
ration of  its  syllables  as  well  as  the  conceits  in  sev- 
eral of  the  poetic  tributes  supports  the  view  that 
the  first  syllable  was  pronounced  long  in  London, 
no  matter  what  the  usage  of  Stratford  may  have 
been. 

'  It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  name  thus  hyphenated 
presents  the  separate  words  as  they  would  appear  as  common 
nouns  in  Elizabethan  orthography. 


VI.    Contemporary  Tributes  and  Allusions 

The  evidence  of  Shakespeare's  admirers  and 
critics  In  his  own  day  Is  of  little  practical  value  in 
arriving  at  the  proper  form  of  the  surname,  since 
In  any  case  another  person's  spelling  of  a  name  Is 
either  the  copy  of  some  printed  or  written  form,  or 
(worse  yet)  an  attempt  at  phonetic  spelling  from 
hearing  the  name  spoken.  Yet  the  vagaries  of 
Shakespeare's  contemporaries  In  this  matter  are  not 
without  Interest,  showing  as  they  do  a  series  of 
variant  forms  second  In  number  to  the  documents 
alone. 

Unless  Robert  Greene's  famous  "Shake-scene" 
of  1592  In  his  Groats-worth  of  Wit  be  accepted  as 
throwing  light  on  the  spelling  of  the  first  syllable, 
the  earliest  contemporary  allusion  In  which  the  poet 
is  mentioned  by  name  Is  in  the  commendatory 
verses  prefixed  to  JVillobie  his  Avisa  (1594)  where 
we  find  Shake-speare.  John  Weever,  in  his  Ad 
Gulielmum  Shakespeare  (1595)  uses  this  spelling 
In  the  title  and  first  line,  but  In  the  poem  the  name 
recurs  once  as  Shakespear.  Some  of  the  others 
who  used  the  spelling  Shakespeare  previous  to  the 

30 


'*      Contemporary   Tributes  and  Allusions      31 

publication  of  the  First  Folio  (1623)  are  Francis 
Meres  in  his  Palladis  Tamia  (1598);  Richard 
Barnfield  (1598)  ;  Gabriel  Harvey  (1598)  ;  John 
Manningham  (1601)  ;  WiUiam  Camden  (1603)  ; 
Anthony  Scoloker  (1604);  Thomas  Freeman 
(1614);  Edmund  Howes  (1614);  John  Taylor 
(1620);  and  William  Basse  in  the  well-known 
epitaph  on  the  poet.^  To  these  should  be  added 
three  further  instances  in  which  the  name  is  spelled 
with  a  hyphen  as  Shake-speare.  These  are  in 
Robert  Chester's  Love's  Martyr  (1601);  John 
Davies'  The  Scourge  of  Folly  ( 161 1  ?)  ;  and  John 
Webster's  The  White  Divel  ( 1 6 1 2 )  .^ 

Apart  from  the  generally  accepted  spelling, 
Shakespeare's  contemporaries  used  six  others  in 
works  that  are  now  accessible,  and  of  these  six 
only  Shakspeare  occurs  more  than  once ;  it  is  found 
in  William  Clarke's  Polimanteia  ( 1595)  ;  an  anon- 
ymous ballad,  A  Mourneful  Dittie,  entituled  Eliz- 
abeth's Losse  (1603)  ;  and  in  William  Barkstead's 
Mirrha  ( 1607) .  The  remaining  five,  which  occur 
once  each,  are :  Shakespheare,  an  obvious  misprint, 
in  Richard  Carew's  The  Excellencie  of  the  English 

*  For  the  full  quotations  see  Ingleby's  Centurie  of  Prayse,  (2nd 
ed.),  pp.  21,  26,  30,  45,  59,  63,  64,  106,  108,  133,  136. 
'  Ingleby,  pp.  6,  43,  94,  100. 


32  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Tongue  (1595-96)  ;  Shakespere,  In  Edmund  Bol- 
ton's Hypercritica  (16 10);  Shakespear,  In  Sir 
William  Drummond's /For^'5^  written  about  16 10; 
and  finally,  Shakspeer  and  Sheakspear,  both  In  the 
Notes  by  William  Driimmond  of  Conversations 
with  Ben  J  onsen  at  Hawthornden  ( 1619)  .^ 

Taking  this  evidence  for  v/hat  It  may  be  v/orth, 
we  find  that  Shakespeare's  contemporaries  almost 
uniformly  spelled  his  name  as  most  of  us  prefer 
to  spell  It  to-day;  and  that  up  to  1623  the  printed 
form  Shakspere  has  not  been  recorded  In  a  single 
Instance. 

^Ingleby,  pp.  15,  56,  76,  20,  91,  iii,  129. 


VII.    The  Period  of  the  Four  Folios 

The  publication  of  the  First  Folio  by  Heminge 
and  Condell  in  1623  naturally  marked  an  epoch  in 
the  posthumous  reputation  of  William  Shakespeare 
and  in  a  sense  proclaimed  an  authoritative  spelling 
of  his  name.  Although  the  register  at  Stationers' 
Hall  reads  "  Shakspeer  "  for  this  volume,  the  form 
Shakespeare  is  used  throughout  the  folio  itself, 
occasionally  with  the  hyphen.  The  title-page,  the 
dedication  to  the  Earls  of  Pembroke  and  Mont- 
gomery, the  address  To  the  great  Variety  of  Read- 
ers, Ben  Jonson's  verses  and  the  minor  encomiums 
of  Holland,  Digges  and  I.  M.  all  use  this  spelling. 

The  orthographical  evolution  of  the  later  folios 
is  most  curious,  so  far  as  the  poet's  name  is  con- 
cerned. The  Second  Folio  (1632),  and  likewise  the 
1663  impression  of  the  Third  Folio,  have  Shake- 
speare throughout,  occasionally  with  a  hyphen, 
as  observed  in  the  quartos.  In  the  1664  edition, 
which  contains  the  seven  spurious  plays,  the  title- 
page  reads  Shakespear,  though  Ben  Jonson's  verses 
under  the  Droeshout  portrait  opposite  the  title  re- 
tain Shakespeare,  as  do  the  other  commendatory 
verses,  except  two  instances  of  Shakespear.     The 


34  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Fourth  Folio  (1684)  has  Shakespear  in  every  in- 
stance. The  most  probable  explanation  for  this 
change  is,  of  course,  the  loss  of  the  final  e  during 
that  period  in  common  and  proper  names  alike. 

The  writers  of  the  seventeenth  century  seem 
to  have  been  guided  largely  by  the  usage  of  the 
folios.  Previous  to  1664  the  form  Shakespeare 
prevailed,  but  after  that  date  Shakespear  was  far 
more  common.  Other  variations  are  fairly  numer- 
ous, though  sporadic.  In  the  Centiirie  of  Prayse 
there  are  one  hundred  and  forty-two  quotations 
from  the  period  1 623-1 694  in  which  the  poet  is 
mentioned  by  name.  Of  these,  sixty-one  read 
Shakespeare,  fifty-five  are  Shakespear,  and  eight 
use  both  of  these  forms.  As  for  the  remaining 
eighteen,  Shakspeare  is  used  by  seven,  Shakspear 
by  three,  Shakespeere,  Shackspear  and  Shakspere 
by  two  each,  and  Shackspeer  and  Shakspire  by  one 
each.  Thus,  in  spite  of  the  close  rivalry  of 
Shakespear,  the  form  Shakespeare  once  more  leads, 
and  the  rest  are  negligible. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  specify  all  the  instances 
in  which  the  two  principal  forms  occur.  Shake- 
speare was  used  by  Burton,  Drayton,  Cowley,  Jon- 
son,  Milton,^  Sir  Aston  Cokaine,  William  Habing- 

^  Milton's  Epitaph  on  the  admirable  Dramaticke  Poet  W. 
Shakespeare  appears  in  his  own  poems  (1645)  as  On  Shakespear, 
1630. 


The  Period  of  the  Four  Folios  35 

ton,  Thomas  Heywood,  Sir  William  D'Avenant, 
Richard  Brome,  Thomas  Fuller,  Sir  John  Denham, 
James  Howell,  Thomas  Randolph,  Samuel  Pepys, 
Dryden,  John  Aubrey  and  William  Walsh.  On 
the  other  hand,  Shakespear  was  used  by  Suckling, 
Shirley,  Fuller,  Dryden,  Denham,  Shadwell, 
Rymer,  Tate,  Otway,  Aubrey,  Browne  and  Lang- 
baine.  It  will  be  observed  that  several  names 
appear  in  both  lists,  indicating  that  men  like  Fuller, 
Dryden  and  Denham  varied  in  their  usage. 

Turning  to  minor  variants,  we  shall  find  their 
use  due  to  ignorance  or  carelessness  rather  than  to 
any  deliberate  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  writer  to 
modify  an  accepted  spelling.  The  seven  instances^ 
in  which  Shakspeare  is  found  are  all  obscure. 
Shakspear  occurs-  in  an  anonymous  manuscript  of 
1650  first  printed  by  Halliwell-Phillipps;  in 
Richard  Flecknoe's  Epigrams  ( 1670) ,  and  in  Dry- 
den's  prologue  to  The  Mistakes  (1691),  a  tragi- 
comedy by  Joseph  Harris.  It  is  unlikely  that 
Dryden  was  responsible  for  the  spelling.  Shake- 
speare is  found  in  John  Jonson's  The  Academy  of 
Love  (1641)  and  in  The  Great  Assises  Holden  in 
Parnassus    (1645),   but   the   latter   also   has  the 

*  Centurie  of  Prayse,  pp.  218,  219,  220,  273,  301,  307,  399. 
^Ibid.,  pp.  277,  345,  411. 


36  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 


o 


forms  Shakespeare  and  Shakespear.  Shackspear 
occurs  in  //  Hermeticall  Banquet  (1651)  and  in 
Sir  Charles  Sedley's  The  Wary  JViddow  (1693).^ 

The  first  use  of  the  form  Shakspere  in  any  lit- 
erary reference  to  the  poet  is  in  Sir  Richard 
Baker's  Chronicle  of  England  (1660)  in  a  pas- 
sage that  also  indulges  in  such  orthographical  liber- 
ties as  Broom,  Cartwrite,  Johnson  (for  rare  Ben), 
and  Sucklin.  Besides  this  inauspicious  beginning, 
the  only  other  example  is  in  Evelyn's  letter  of 
August  12,  1689,  to  Mr.  Pepys;  as  this  letter  was 
first  printed  in  Bray's  edition  of  the  Memoirs 
(18 19)  it  Is  possible  that  the  spelling  is  Bray's. 

Shackspeer  occurs  only  in  Prynne's  Histrio- 
Mastix  (1632);  and  Shakspire  only  in  Martin 
Parker's  The  Poets  blind  mans  Bough   (1641).^ 

In  Some  joo  Fresh  Allusions  to  Shakspere  from 
IS94  to  i6g4  A.  D.,  edited  by  Dr.  Furnivall  for 
The  New  Shakspere  Society  (1886),  there  are 
about  ninety  additional  references  in  which  the  poet 
is  named.  Of  these  sixty-seven  have  the  form 
Shakespear,  but  all  save  five  are  later  in  date 
than  the  Third  Folio.      Fifteen  use  Shakespeare, 

^  Centurie  of  Prayse,  pp.  238,  260,  290,  418. 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  315,  407. 
'  Ibid.,  pp.  195,  239. 


'•'  The  Period  of  the  Four  Folios  t^J 

and  the  remaining  eight  show  ten  different  spell- 
ings. The  Returne  from  Pernassus,  Part  /  ( 1 600) 
uses  Shakspeare,  Shakspear  and  Shakespeare;  the 
preface  to  William  Mountfort's  The  Successful 
Stranger  (1640)  has  Shaksphear,  Shakespear  and 
Shakpher.  Others  in  this  group  are  Shakespere, 
Shaksper,  Shakespeer,  Shackspear,  Shakesphear 
and  Shaksepeur,  the  last  obviously  a  typograph- 
ical mishap.^  Be  it  carefully  noted  that  there  is 
not  a  single  instance  of  Shakspere  to  reenforce  the 
two  sorry  examples  in  The  Centurie  of  Prayse, 

^  For  the  text  of  these  quotations  see  Fresh  Allusions,  pp.  12*, 
179,  183,  235,  265,  301,  341,  351. 


VIII.    Modern  Editors  and  Critics 

It  is  not  apparent  that  the  early  eighteenth- 
century  editors  concerned  themselves  to  any  extent 
over  the  spelling  of  Shakespeare's  name.  In  all 
probability  most  of  them  adopted  the  spelling  of 
the  particular  folio  that  served  as  a  basis  for  their 
text.  The  first  was  Nicholas  Rowe  (1709)  who 
used  the  Fourth  Folio  and  adopted  the  spelling 
Shakespear.  The  same  form  was  preserved  in 
his  second  edition  (1714)  and  in  the  edition 
(1723-25)  by  Alexander  Pope,  who  also  based 
his  text  on  the  Fourth  Folio.  The  third  editor, 
Lewis  Theobald  (1733),  not  only  made  the  most 
brilliant  emendations  in  the  text,  but  adopted  the 
First  Folio  as  his  basis,  wherein  he  acted  in  accord- 
ance with  the  most  advanced  Shakespearean  schol- 
arship of  the  present  day.  It  is  a  pleasure  to 
record  that  the  admirable  Theobald  spelled  the 
name  Shakespeare,  and  that  this  spelling  was  re- 
tained in  the  later  editions  of  1740,  1752,  1772 
and  1773. 

The  fourth  editor.  Sir  Thomas  Hanmer  (1743- 
44) ,  reverted  to  the  form  Shakespear  and  was  fol- 

38 


''  Modern  Editors  and  Critics  39 

lowed  by  Warburton  (1747)  who  virtually  re- 
vised Pope.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  century  Dr. 
Johnson  (1765),  the  learned  Capell  (1768),  and 
'Steevens  (1773)  all  used  Shakespeare.  When 
the  second  edition  (1778)  of  the  Johnson-Steevens 
was  published  Shakspeare  was  adopted,  and  was  re- 
tained by  Reed  in  his  revision  of  that  edition 
(1785)  and  in  all  subsequent  editions  of  that  text. 
In  1788  the  London  publisher,  Bell,  issued  an 
edition  in  twenty  volumes,  using  the  spelling  Shak- 
spere,  thus  achieving  the  doubtful  honor  of  being 
the  first  publisher  to  use  that  form.  He  had  pre- 
viously (1774)  published  a  nine-volume  edition 
using  Shakespeare.  The  first  editor  to  make  a 
direct  issue  of  the  spelling  of  the  name  was  Malone 
(1790),  who  decided  in  favor  of  Shakspeare. 
This  form  prevailed  for  a  long  time  as  the  most 
popular  of  all,  although  a  Johnson-Steevens-Ma- 
lone  edition  of  "  Shakespear "  was  published  at 
Edinburgh  in  1792.  Virtually  every  edition  that 
appeared  up  to  1840  used  the  form  Shakspeare; 
among  others,  the  Variorum  (Boswell's  Malone) 
of  1821,  Harness  (1825),  Chalmers  (1826), 
Singer  (1826),  Valpy  (1832-34),  and  Campbell 
(1838).  The  curious  edition  by  Bowdler  (1807) 
appeared  originally  as  Shakespeare,  but  in  his  sec- 


40  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

ond  edition  (1820),  besides  removing  "those 
words  and  expressions  which  cannot  with  propriety 
be  read  aloud  in  a  family,"  he  dropped  the  e  from 
the  first  syllable  of  the  dramatist's  name.  Later 
reprints  of  Bowdler  restored  the  e,  leaving  the 
restoration  of  the  indecorous  "words  and  expres- 
sions "  to  other  less  fastidious  hands. 

Charles  Knight^  was  the  first  warm  champion 
of  the  form  Shakspere  (1842),  and  the  many  re- 
issues of  his  edition  preserve  that  spelling.  He 
was  followed  by  Barry  Cornwall  In  1843.  The 
prevailing  modern  sentiment  was  set  by  Collier 
(1841-44),  who,  like  Theobald,  Insisted  on 
Shakespeare.  In  America,  Verplanck  (1847)  ^f'^ 
Hudson  (1851)  adopted  the  same  form.  Halli- 
well[-Phillipps]  (1853-65)  favored  Shakespeare 
and  wrote  much  to  defend  his  choice. 

Since  then  the  editors  have  all  but  unanimously 
chosen  Shakespeare.  Among  the  more  noteworthy 
instances  of  editors  and  editions  employing  that 
form  are  Lloyd-Singer  (i856),Dyce  (1857;  1864- 
67),  Staunton  (1858-60),  the  Cambridge  edition 
(1863-66),  Keightley  (1864),  Charles  and  Mary 

'  Knight's  preference  for  Shakspere  rested  mainly  on  the  signa- 
ture in  Florio's  Montaigne  (1603),  which  is  now  regarded  as 
spurious. 


Modern  Editors  and  Critics  41 

Cowden  Clarke  (1864),  White  (1865),  the 
Globe  edition  (1866),  the  Furness  Variorum 
(1871;  in  progress),  the  Oxford  edition  (1892), 
'the  Temple  Shakespeare  (1894-96),  the  Eversley 
edition  of  Professor  Herford  (1899),  ^^^  ^yo- 
fessor  Dowden's  edition  (1899;  in  progress). 
Among  the  few  editors  since  the  days  of  Knight 
who  have  preferred  the  shorter  spelling  Shakspere 
are  Delius  (1854-61),  Marsh  (1864),  the  Leo- 
pold Shakspere,  with  an  Introduction  by  Dr.  Fur- 
nivall  (1877),  and  the  Elizabethan  Shakspere  of 
Professor  Mark  Liddell  (1903;  in  progress).^ 

The  scholars,  like  the  editors,  have  chosen  sides, 
and  although  at  times  their  usage  varies,  it  is  none 
the  less  possible  to  group  them  roughly  into  four 
classes,  according  to  the  form  which  each  critic 
prefers.  The  spelling  Shakespear,  once  popular 
as  the  form  of  the  last  two  folios,  of  Rowe,  Pope, 
Hanmer  and  Warburton,  and  used  by  Burns,  Ot- 
way.  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  Shadwell,  Shirley  and 
others,  has  very  few  defenders  to-day;  but  among 

^  On  January  31,  1906,  Professor  Liddell  kindly  wrote  to  me  as 
follows:  "I  use  the  spelling  you  refer  to  because  it  is  the  form 
given  in  the  New  English  Dictionary  and  in  the  Century  Dic- 
tionary, reasonably  trustworthy  standards  of  English  and  Amer- 
ican usage,  besides  having  the  countenance  of  the  best  English 
scholars.  I  should  feel  called  upon  to  defend  myself  for  employ- 
ing any  other  spelling  in  my  edition  of  Shakspere." 


42  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

them  are  Mr.  W.  Carew  Hazlitt  and  Mr.  G.  Ber- 
nard Shaw — the  latter  probably  using  It  because 
it  is  the  form  least  likely  to  be  adopted  by  anyone 
else.  William  Hazlitt  usually  employed  Shake- 
spear,  though  at  times  he  used  Shakspeare  or  Shake- 
speare. 

The  second  form — Shakspeare — popularized  by 
Malone  and  predominant  for  half  a  century,  seems 
to  be  obsolescent,  though  it  was  used  by  Cole- 
ridge, DeQuincey,  Douce,  Drake,  Macaulay, 
Mezieres,  Schlegel,  Simrock,  Thimm,  Tieck,  and 
Ulrici.  The  late  Canon  Ainger  favored  this  form. 
It  is  still  the  "official"  spelling  approved  by  The 
Athenaum,  and  was  likewise  championed  by  Notes 
and  Queries  from  its  inception  until  that  useful 
little  weekly  became  orthodox  in  the  spelling  in 
1899. 

Thirdly,  Shakspere — latest  and  most  rampant 
of  the  heterodox  forms — was  adopted  by  Madden, 
Blades,  Simpson,  Knight,  Lanier  and  Marsh,  and 
is  still  preferred  by  Professor  Henry  Beers, ^  Pro- 
fessor F.  Boas,  Professor  Alois  Brandl,  Professor 

'Professor  Beers  writes:  "My  preference  for  Shakspere  is  sim- 
ply a  matter  of  taste.  It  has  fewer  letters  for  one  thing,  as  well 
as  good  autograph  authority.  Uniformity  is  desirable,  but  not 
very  important;  I  hope  that  Shakspere  may  prevail,  but  I  have 
no  belief  that  it  will." 


Modern  Editors  and  Critics  43 

George  R.  Carpenter,  Dr.  F.  J.  Furnivall,  Pro- 
fessor A.W.Ward,  Professor  Barrett  Wendell  and 
his  colleagues  at  Harvard  University  {mea  culpa, 
if  any  of  these  scholars  are  no  longer  in  this  cate- 
gory). The  late  Dr.  C.  M.  Ingleby  at  first 
favored  Shakspere,  but  later  joined  the  ranks  of 
the  advocates  of  Shakespeare.  Professor  Dowden^ 
used  the  short  form  in  his  admirable  Shakspere 
Primer,  but  now  prefers  Shakespeare. 

The  variants  disposed  of,  we  come  now  to  the 
generally  accepted  form  Shakespeare,  whose  adher- 
ents may  enjoy  that  peace  of  mind  and  self-satisfac- 
tion that  appertain  to  orthodoxy.  Among  the 
more  distinguished  scholars  of  the  past  who  have 
written  about  the  poet  in  this  orthographical  cate- 
gory are  Abbott,  Baynes,  Bartlett,  Elze,  Farmer, 
Garrick,  Gervinus,  Hunter,  Koch,  Konig,  Kreys- 
sig,  Lamb,  Leo,  Lessing,  Henry  Morley,  Reichel, 

'  Professor  Dowden  writes  me:  "  I  have  no  very  decided  prefer- 
ence for  Shakespeare  or  for  Shakspere,  but  I  incline  towards  the 
former  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  the  printed  '  Shakespeare '  at  the 
close  of  the  dedications  of  Venus  and  Adonis  and  Lucrece,  and 
on  the  title-page  of  the  first  folio.  It  seems  to  me  therefore  that 
'  Shakespeare '  cannot  be  wrong,  while  we  know  that  written 
signatures  were  often  varied  either  capriciously  or  for  some 
motive  of  casual  convenience.  But  it  is  not  a  point  of  conscience 
with  me,  and  if  I  were  writing  in  any  review  which  usually  gave 
the  form  '  Shakspere,'  I  should  comply  without  any  scruple." 


44  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Sir  Leslie  Stephen,  and  Justin  WInsor.  It  is, 
moreover,  the  form  used  to-day  by  such  scholars 
as  Professor  A.  C.  Bradley,  Dr.  Georg  Brandes, 
Professor  James  W.  Bright,  Mr.  Stopford  Brooke, 
Professor  J.  Churton  Collins,  Professor  Hiram 
Corson,  Mr.  F.  G.  Fleay,  Dr.  H.  H.  Furness,  Dr. 
Richard  Garnett,^  Professor  John  W.  Hales,  Col. 
T.  W.  HIgglnson,  Mr.  Sidney  Lee,  Professor  T. 
R.  Lounsbury,  Professor  Richard  G.  Moulton, 
Dr.  W.  J.  Rolfe,  Professor  George  Saintsbury, 
Professor  E.  Slevers,  Rev.  W.  W.  Skeat,  Pvlr.  E. 
C.  Stedman,  Mr.  A.  C.  Swinburne  and  Professor 
A.  H.  Tolman.  With  such  names  before  us  we 
can  decide  more  satisfactorily  under  which  banner 
to  enroll  ourselves. 

^  Dr.  Garnett  died  April  13,  1906. 


IX.    The  Controversy  Over  the  Orthography 

For  almost  two  centuries  after  the  age  of  Shake- 
speare his  editors  and  critics  wrote  the  name  Shake- 
spear  or  Shakespeare  in  bhssful  Indifference  toward 
the  question  of  its  correct  orthography.  It  was 
Steevens  and  Malone  who  first  assumed  that  the 
correct  reading  of  the  autographs  of  the  poet  would 
determine  the  proper  spelling.^  Malone  (who 
for  a  time  employed  the  very  unusual  form  Shak- 
spear)  was  present  In  1776  when  Steevens  traced 
the  three  signatures  of  the  will.  AVhile  two  of 
them  appeared  to  be  Shakspere,  they  interpreted 
the  third  as  Shakspeare  and  both  scholars  hence- 
forth wrote  the  name  thus.  Malone  was  after- 
wards convinced  that  the  third  signature  was  Shak- 
spere, like  the  others,  but  he  decided  to  continue 
writing  Shakspeare.  He  went  so  far  as  to  assert 
that  if  any  Shakespeare  autograph  should  come  to 
light  In  which  the  name  was  spelled  other  than 
Shakspere,  that  autograph  Vvould  be  ipso  facto  a 
forgery.     This  rash  assumption  was  a  result  of 

^  See  Malone's  Inquiry  into  the  Authenticity  of  Certain  Miscel- 
laneous Papers  (1796). 

45 


46  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

his  zeal  to  convict  William  Henry  Ireland  of  the 
gross  forgeries  which  the  letter  brought  out  toward 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

To  John  Pinkerton,  an  obscure  and  eccentric 
Scotch  critic,  has  usually  been  assigned  the  ques- 
tionable honor  of  being  the  first  to  advocate  the 
spelling  Shakspere.  In  his  Letters  of  Literature 
(ly^S)?  published  under  the  pseudonym  Robert 
Heron,  besides  suggesting  a  most  ludicrous  system 
of  spelling-reform,  Pinkerton  devoted  three  caustic 
letters  to  the  errors  in  Steevens'  edition  (1778)  of 
Shakespeare.  He  used  the  form  Shakspere,  but 
without  comment  or  defence.  It  Is  but  fair  to  add 
that  Pinkerton  in  later  years  characterized  this 
volume  as  "  a  book  written  In  early  youth,  and  con- 
taining many  juvenile  crude  ideas  long  since  aban- 
doned by  the  author."  After  all,  the  form  Shak- 
spere had  previously  been  advocated  elsewhere, 
since  as  early  as  March  15,  1784,  a  J.  Bowie  wrote 
a  letter  to  the  Gentleman's  Magazine^  condemning 
the  "new  fashion  of  writing  Shakespeare's  name 
Shakspere;  a  mode  of  pronunciation  proper  only 
in  the  mouth  of  Mrs.  Slipslop."^  He  referred  to 
the  fourteen  quartos  of  Shakespeare's  plays  In  his 

^  Gentleman's  Magazine,  LIV,  p.  253  ;  see  also  p.  505. 
^In  Henry  Fielding's  Joseph  Andrews. 


-•'      The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography  47 

possession  (happy  man)  as  his  authority  for  the 
accepted  form,  and  expressed  the  vain  hope  that 
no  future  editor  "will  think  of  adopting  this  new- 
fangled spelling." 

It  is  quite  probable  that  the  publication  of 
Steevens'  fac-similes  of  the  will-signatures  caused 
the  first  disputes  concerning  the  orthography  and 
that  Pinkerton  was  in  no  wise  responsible  for  its 
inception.  Certainly  the  controversy  was  carried 
on  during  1787  in  a  series  of  hitherto  neglected 
letters  in  the  Gentleman' s  Magazine.  Both  Shak- 
spere  and  the  "  utter  abomination  of  the  lately- 
adopted  spelling  of  Shakspear  "  were  condemned 
and  afterwards  as  zealously  defended.^  The 
readers  of  the  magazine  apparently  grew  tired  of 
the  discussion,  as  one  suggested-  that  a  summary 
be  made  to  dismiss  the  matter  most  effectively. 
There  was  little  further  mention  of  the  controversy 
until  in  18 17  a  correspondent^  pleaded  for  Shake- 
spear  as  the  only  form  that  preserved  the  obvious 
signification  of  the  separate  words. 

The  first  work  directly  on  the  subject  was  Sir 
Frederic  Madden's  Observations  on  an  Autograph 

^Gentleman's  Magazine,  LVII,  pp.  24,  125,  204;  LIX,  pp.  478, 
480,  494,  689. 

^Ibid.,  LVIII,  p.  33. 

^Ibtd.,  LXXXVII,  part  I  (498-499). 


48  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

of  Shakspere  and  the  Orthography  of  his  Name, 
communicated  to  Archaologia^  and  reprinted  in 
pamphlet  form  (1838).  Madden  briefly  consid- 
ered in  turn  the  various  autographs  of  the  poet, 
accepting  as  genuine  the  signature  in  the  Florio 
Montaigne  of  1603.  His  conclusion  was  that 
"  the  poet  always  wrote  his  name  Shakspere.  .  .  . 
This  I  state  in  opposition  to  Chalmers  and  Drake 
who  assert  that  '  all  the  genuine  signatures  of 
Shakspeare  are  dissimilar.'  "  The  usefulness  of 
Madden's  study  is  much  impaired  by  the  fact  that 
the  only  autograph  in  which  the  second  syllable  is 
distinctly  written  is  now  regarded  as  a  forgery. 

Madden's  conclusions  were,  hov/ever,  favorably 
received  by  Henry  Hallam  in  his  Introduction  to 
the  Literature  of  Europe,  and  led  to  a  second  epis- 
tolary controversy  in  the  pages  of  the  Gentleman' s 
Magazine,  inaugurated  by  a  letter^  from  Isaac 
D'Israeli  under  the  date  of  December  17,  1839, 
protesting  against  the  innovation.  He  admitted 
that  the  autographs  were  probably  Shakspere,  but 
gave  many  of  the  good  reasons  for  preferring 
Shakespeare  that  are  cited  to-day.  In  conclusion 
he  wrote:  "  I  rejoice  that  the  most  able  writer  on 

^Arc/iaologia,  XXVIl  (113-123). 
^Gentleman's  Magazine,  1840,  I   (39-40). 


"*      The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography  49 

our  dramatic  history,  Mr.  Payne  Collier,  has 
adopted  the  genuine  name,  as  also  the  judicious 
Mr.  Dyce.  I  here  enter  my  protest:  while  a  drop 
'of  Ink  circulates  In  my  pen,  I  shall  ever  loyally 
write  the  name  of  Shakespeare."^ 

On  January  16,  1840,  John  Bruce  replied^  at 
length  to  D'Israeli.  He  admitted  at  the  outset 
that  he  was  a  "  Maddenite "  and  that  he  "re- 
nounced the  first  e  and  abjured  the  second  a  "  in 
the  poet's  name.  He  pertinently  called  D'Israeli's 
attention  to  the  fact  that  In  the  last  edition  of  the 
latter's  Curiosities  of  Literature  the  name  was 
spelled  Shakspeare  at  least  five  times;  In  other 
words,  as  an  argument  for  Shakspere,  Bruce  con- 
victed his  opponent  of  having  indiscreetly  used  the 
form  Shakspeare,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been 
the  prevailing  spelling  of  the  previous  half-cen- 
tury. Apart  from  this  luminous  rejoinder,  Bruce 
made  as  good  a  plea  for  Shakspere  as  has  appeared 
anywhere  since  his  day. 

In  the  March  number^  Sir  Frederic  Madden  re- 
sumed the  discussion.  He  reduced  the  question  at 
issue  to  this  brief  proposition:  Ought  we  to  be 

*  There  is  an  article  on  this  subject  in  later  editions  of  D'Israeli's 
Curiosities  of  Literature. 
^Gentleman's  Magazine,  1840,  I   (161-166). 
^  Ibid.,  1^^.  (262-263). 


50  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

guided  by  the  variable  authority  of  the  press  and 
small  wit  of  some  pointless  pun?  or,  Shall  we  adopt 
the  unvarying  (  !)  evidence  furnished  to  us  by  the 
hand  of  the  Dramatic  Bard  himself  ?  With  due  ex- 
pression of  regard  for  D'Israeli,  Collier,  Dyce  and 
Hunter,  he  nevertheless  expected  Shakspere  to 
maintain  its  ground  against  all  comers.  The  sec- 
ond portion  of  Sir  Frederic's  proposition  is  note- 
worthy for  its  splendid  assurance  if  for  nothing 
else:  other  more  expert  "manuscript  men,"  after 
futile  attempts  to  decipher  the  Shakespeare  signa- 
tures, have  come  to  a  conclusion  that  will  appeal 
to  most  of  us — namely,  that  as  a  purveyor  of  auto- 
graphical  evidence  the  "Dramatic  Bard"  was  a 
distinct  failure.  In  the  same  number^  of  the  mag- 
azine, Mr.  John  William  Burgon  further  compli- 
cated the  situation  by  urging  anew  the  spelling 
Shakspeare,  though  his  argument  made  a  far  better 
case  for  Shakespeare  than  for  the  form  that  he 
advocated. 

Joseph  Hunter  entered  the  fray  in  April,"  reply- 
ing specifically  to  Madden  in  a  letter  that  may  be 
regarded  as  a  first  draft  of  the  material  which  he 
afterwards  used   in   his   New  Illustrations.     His 

^Gentleman's  Magazine,  1840,  I  (263-265). 
^Ibid.,  pp.  (369-374). 


The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography   5 1 

communication  was  followed  by  a  second  long  let- 
ter from  John  Bruce,  who  concerned  himself  more 
particularly  with  Mr.  Burgon.^  But  the  discus- 
sion was  not  permitted  to  assume  the  complexion 
of  a  double  debate.  A  new  champion  of  Shakspere 
appeared"  in  the  person  of  Bolton  Corney.  In 
May^  Burgon  offered  a  warm  rejoinder  to  Bruce, 
and  in  June^  the  latter  replied  in  a  rambling  letter 
that  closed  the  desultory  debate  from  which  the 
more  discreet  had  already  withdrawn.  At  the 
approach  of  summer  both  editor  and  combatants 
must  have  felt  that  the  public  had  enough  of  this 
futile  controversy  that  promised  to  lead  nowhere. 
In  view  of  the  evidence  presented  elsewhere  in 
these  pages,  it  would  be  useless  to  dwell  here  upon 
the  specific  arguments  advanced  by  these  various 
correspondents  for  the  edification  of  the  readers  of 
the  Gentleman's  Magazine  in  1840. 

After  Joseph  Hunter's  defence  of  the  form 
Shakespeare  in  his  already-mentioned  New  Illus- 
trations (1845),  the  next  writer  who  gave  note- 
worthy attention  to  this  subject  was  Richard  Grant 
White,  who,  in  his  Shakespeare's  Scholar  (1854), 

^  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1840,  I  (374-379). 
^Ibid.,  pp.  (379-380). 
^Ibid.,  pp.  (474-480). 
*Ibid.,  pp.   (591-594). 


52  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

had  a  brief  chapter^  on  "  Shakespeare's  Name." 
After  citing  the  usual  reasons  for  preferring  that 
form,  he  suggested  that  with  John  Shaivsper's  be- 
coming a  man  of  consideration  and  substance  by 
his  marriage  into  the  Arden  family  and  by  the  sub- 
sequent grant  of  arms,  the  "herald  saw  and  seized 
the  opportunity  which  the  name  afforded  for  pun- 
ning blazonry"  and  with  the  right  to  bear  a  spear 
or  on  a  bend  sable  came  the  change  to  Shakespeare ; 
but  as  old  customs  change  with  difficulty,  the  form 
Shakspere  survived  at  Stratford,  though  the  dram- 
atist became  more  generally  known  as  Shakespeare 
in  London. 

The  article  on  "  Shakspere's  Name  "  written  by 
Professor  C.  F.  Koch  in  1865  has  been  considered 
in  a  previous  chapter.^  George  Russell  French, 
in  his  Shakspeareana  Genealogica  (1868)  chose  a 
middle  ground  and  became  a  belated  advocate  of 
the  form  Shakspeare.  Karl  Elze  reviewed^  the 
controversy  at  length  with  much  skill  in  1869,  and 
gave  sufficient  reasons  for  the  general  adoption  of 
Shakespeare.  In  the  same  year  appeared  a  curious 
pamphlet  by  George  Wise,  entitled  The  Autograph 

MVhite,  Shakespeare's  Scholar,  pp.  (478-480). 

^  See  p.  4. 

^ Shakespeare-Jahrbuch,  V   (325-332). 


-i'      The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography   53 

of  William  Shakespeare,  with  FacSimiles  of  his 
Signature  as  appended  to  various  Legal  Docu- 
ments; together  with  4000  Ways  of  Spelling  the 
'  Name  according  to  English  Orthography.  The 
author  discussed  not  only  the  accepted  signatures 
but  the  Montaigne  and  Holinshed  autographs  as 
well.  At  the  top  of  each  of  his  thirty-two  pages 
he  printed  a  different  form  of  Shakespeare's  name, 
and  devoted  the  second  half  of  the  pamphlet  to  the 
four  thousand  theoretical  combinations  that  would 
produce  Shakespeare  or  something  like  it.  As  an 
example  of  the  possibilities  of  the  English  alphabet 
the  exercise  Is  Interesting,  but  the  quotation  of  a 
few  gems  like  Schaiksspaerr,  Schaquespyrre,  Schey- 
quesspeirre,  Shayxspirr  and  Sheyquesspearr  will 
sufffce  to  show  Its  futility.  Strangely  enough,  this 
long  list  of  absurd  creations  lacks  a  number  of 
spellings  that  actually  occur.  We  should  be 
thankful  that  Mr.  Wise  did  not  urge  the  adoption 
of  any  of  these  heirs  of  his  Invention.  Recently  a 
still  more  ingenious  mathematical  spirit,  Mr.  H. 
B.  Philipps,  compiled^  a  table  showing  1,036,800 
possible  spellings  of  the  name  of  the  poet,  and 
added  with  becoming  modesty  that  "  many  other 
ways  are  possible,  but  these  are  enough."     Many 

^ Notes  and  Queries  (Ninth  Series),  III,  p.  43. 


54  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

of  us  would  fain  persuade  the  advocates  of  Shak- 
spere  that  two  ways  are  just  one  more  than  enough. 

On  July  22,  1872,  Mr.  Henry  DIrcks  wrote  to 
The  Athenaum'^  asking  If  It  was  not  "high  time 
that  our  modern  literature  should  acknowledge  a 
single  mode  of  spelling  our  great  dramatist's  name, 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  others  as  affected  or  obso- 
lete." He  seemed  to  favor  Shakespeare,  though 
his  choice  was  not  clearly  expressed.  To  this  letter 
Mr.  John  PIgot,  Jr.,  replied,^  calling  attention  to 
the  variations  In  contemporary  documents  and  pre- 
senting several  arguments  for  Shakespeare.  A 
second  correspondent,  J.  Y.  J.,  defended  Shakspere 
(which  was  then  used  by  the  British  Museum)  on 
the  strength  of  the  autographs. 

When  Dr.  F.  J.  Furnlvall  organized  the  New 
Shakspere  Society  In  1874  the  whole  question  arose 
once  more.  In  a  letter^  to  The  Academy  he  wrote : 
"  I  have  been  taken  to  task  by  several  old  Shak- 
sperean  students  for  spelling  our  great  poet's  name 
as  he  spelt  It  himself,  Shakspere,  and  not  as  some 
of  his  contemporaries  spell  It,  Shakspeare  or  Shake- 
speare.     The   opinion   evidently   prevails   among 

^  Athenaum,  1872,  II,  p.  147. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  178. 

^Academy,  V,  p.  95.     See  also  Dr.  Furnivall's  prospectus,  and 
a  later  letter,  printed  in  Shakespeare-J ahrhuch,  XV  (413-414). 


'■'      The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography  55 

some  folk  that  though  the  poor  man  could  write 
plays,  he  did  not  know  how  to  spell  his  own  name. 
.  .  .  Neither  the  practices  of  Shakespeare's 
friends,  critics  or  printers,  nor  the  possibly  spurious 
autographs  in  books  never  proved  to  be  his,  can 
stand  for  a  moment  against  his  own  unquestioned 
signatures  to  legal  documents.  Shakspere,  then, 
is  the  right  spelling  of  the  poet's  name." 

Two  years  later  the  discussion  was  renewed  in 
this  country.  "  How  shall  we  spell  Sh-k-sp-r-'s 
Name?"  asked  J.  H.  Gilmore  in  Scribner's 
Monthly.^  He  quoted  largely  from  Richard 
Grant  White  and  Dr.  Furnivall,  agreeing  finally 
with  the  latter  on  the  unimpeachable  assumption 
that  a  man  has  a  right  to  spell  his  name  as  he 
pleases.  Shakespeare  he  regarded  as  a  "  fashion- 
able form,  arising  much  as  Smith  might  become 
Smythe." 

In  Karl  Elze's  painstaking  biography  (1876)  of 
Shakespeare,  which  was  translated  into  English  in 
1888,  there  is  an  appendix  on  "The  Orthography 
of  Shakespeare's  Name,"  in  which  the  subject  was 
presented  as  previously  treated  by  Elze  in  the 
Shakespeare-J ahrbuch  article.  Still  more  detailed 
was  the  discussion  by  Dr.  C.  M.  Ingleby  in  his 

"■Scribner's  Monthly,  XII  (13-15). 


56  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

Shakespeare,  The  Man  and  The  Book  (1877) 
which  contains  chapters  on  "The  Spelling  of  the 
Surname"  and  "The  Meaning  of  the  Surname." 

Mr.  J.  F.  Marsh  com.plained  in  1877  to  the 
editor  of  Notes  and  Queries'^  that  his  communica- 
tions  were  spelled  Shakespeare,  but  the  proof 
always  had  it  Shakspeare.  He  insisted  on  the 
right  to  spell  the  name  to  suit  himself,  and  main- 
tained that  there  was  no  accepted  orthography  until 
the  First  Folio  crystallized  the  variants  into  Shake- 
speare. He  divided  opinion  on  the  subject  into 
three  classes.  First,  those  who  hold  that  Shake- 
speare, whether  right  or  wrong,  has  acquired  such 
general  acceptance  that  there  is  no  sufficient  justi- 
fication for  meddling  with  it.  Secondly,  those 
who  regard  the  testimony  of  the  known  autographs 
as  conclusive,  which  would  lead  to  Shakspere. 
Thirdly,  those  who  regard  the  first  syllable  as 
short,  and  write  it  so,  giving  either  Shakspeare  or 
Shakspear.  In  conclusion  he  begged  to  enroll  him- 
self with  many  of  the  best  scholars  of  the  day  under 
Shakespeare. 

There  was  no  editorial  response  to  this  com- 
plaint, but,  shortly  after,  C.  F.  S.  Warren  called 
Marsh  to  task  for  using  the  spelling  Shakespearian 

^ Notes  and  Queries  (Fifth  Series),  VIII  (41-42). 


-i'     The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography    57 

instead  of  Shakespearean.^  On  the  same  page  C. 
A.  Ward  wrote  tersely:  "  Prove  how  a  man  writes 
his  own  name,  and  you  prove  how  it  ought  to  be 
'  written.  Shakspere  is  therefore  right,  let  who  will 
differ."  Somewhat  later  Cuthbert  Bede  quoted^ 
from  Albert  Smith  that  the  controversy  had  been 
settled  by  the  discovery  of  this  quatrain  in  the  Har- 
leian  MSS.  at  the  British  Museum: 

How  dyd  Shakespeare  spell  hys  name? 
Y®  weatherre  mayde  y^  change,  we  saye, 
So  write  it  as  ye  please ; 
When  y^  sonne  shone  he  mayde  hys  A, 
When  wette  he  tooke  hys  E'es. 

Edgar  S.  VanWinkle  wrote  on  The  Spelling  of 
Shakespeare' s  Name  in  the  International  Review^ 
in  1878,  and  decided  in  favor  of  the  popular  form 
on  etymological  grounds.  Assuming  that  both  syl- 
lables are  pronounced  long,  he  regarded  this  spell- 
ing as  "  consonant  with  the  pronunciation."  He 
believed  it  more  likely  that  Shakespeare  was  vul- 
garly reduced  to  Shakspeare  than  that  the  latter 
was  lengthened  to  Shakespeare. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  137.  On  pp.  (273-274)  Marsh  defended  -ian  instead 
of  -ean  as  the  normal  form  when  the  penult  of  the  suffix  is  not 
to  bear  the  stress  of  the  word. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  160. 

^International  Review,  V  (690-694). 


58  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

A  curious  example  of  the  very  undesirable  irreg- 
ularities occasioned  by  these  variations  occurred  in 
1879,  when  Miss  Lucy  Toulmin  Smith  used  her 
favorite  though  unusual  form  Shakespere  in  her 
preface  to  the  second  edition  of  Dr.  Ingleby's  Cen- 
turie  of  Prayse,  wherein  the  author  had  used 
Shakespeare  and  preferred  that  form,  and,  to  cap 
the  climax,  the  book  was  published  by  the  New 
Shakspere  Society,  where  Dr.  Furnivall's  spelling 
prevailed.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the 
wishes  of  all  three  were  duly  obeyed  by  the  com- 
positors in  every  instance  in  which  the  name  oc- 
curred. 

Probably  the  best-known  pamphlet  called  forth 
by  this  controversy  was  Halliwell-Phillipps'  New 
Lamps  or  Old?  first  published  at  Brighton  (1879) 
under  the  title  Which  Shall  it  Be?  New  Lamps  or 
Old?  Shaxpere  or  Shakespeare?  The  author 
cited  the  frequent  variations  in  such  Elizabethan 
names  as  Dudley,  Alleyn,  etc.,  and  particularly 
emphasized  the  fact  that  one  of  Shakespeare's 
sons-in-law  is  referred  to  as  Quiney,  Quyney,  Quy- 
neye,  Conoy,  etc.,  the  other  as  Hall,  Hawle,  Halle 
or  Haul.  He  insisted  that  as  we  have  Shake- 
speare's signature  on  three  occasions  only,  it  is  not 
safe  to  assume  that  he  always  wrote  Shakspere. 


,!'     The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography   59 

In  fact,  he  believed  that  there  Is  an  a  in  the  second 
syllable  of  the  third  signature  to  the  will,  but  re- 
garded the  e  in  the  first  syllable  as  the  significant 
flatter.  In  1880  an  enlarged  version  (forty  pages 
instead  of  sixteen)  appeared  as  New  Lamps  or 
Old?  A  Few  Additional  Words  on  the  Momentous 
Question  Respecting  the  E  and  A  in  the  Name  of 
our  National  Dramatist.  At  the  outset,  he  alluded 
to  the  wide-spread  discussion  which  the  pamphlet 
has  aroused — "  besides  an  excellent  leading  article 
In  one  of  the  prominent  London  dailies,  there  were 
a  score  of  other  notices  showing  the  Interest  a 
resuscitation  of  an  old  difficulty  had  excited." 
One  writer  in  the  Daily  News  scented  a  Tory  prop- 
aganda In  the  author's  attitude,  maintaining  that 
"  the  Tories,  having  done  their  best  to  prevent  the 
Introduction  of  Free  Trade  and  the  Reform  Bill, 
are  now  completing  their  iniquities  by  spelling  the 
name  of  the  great  dramatist  in  the  way  In  which 
he  himself  printed  It  In  the  first  edition  of  his  own 
poems ;  that  the  vagabonds  who  write  Shakespeare 
are  bucolic  and  pig-headed  Conservatives,  and  that 
the  angels  who  prefer  Shakspere  are  advanced  and 
enlightened  Radicals."  Many  declared  that  the 
whole  matter  was  quite  unworthy  of  discussion; 
that  It  was  of  more  Importance  to  read  Shake- 


6o  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

speare's  works ;  above  all,  to  understand  them  and 
profit  by  them.  After  analyzing  the  signatures  in 
detail,  and  quoting  a  few  more  early  printed  allu- 
sions in  support  of  Shakespeare,  Halliwell-Phil- 
lipps  printed  as  an  appendix  some  of  the  more  in- 
teresting press-notices  of  the  first  edition  of  his 
pamphlet.  Among  these,  the  Manchester  Guar- 
dian said:  "There  is  one  argument  not  to  be  dis- 
dained for  the  spelling  Shakspere.  It  is  the  short- 
est orthography  that  has  yet  been  proposed,  and 
that  in  a  busy  age  is  a  very  great  recommendation." 

The  immediate  discussion  aroused  by  New 
Lamps  or  Old?  quickly  made  its  way  into  Ger- 
many. W.  Rolfs  sought  to  refute  the  contentions 
of  Halliwell-Phillipps  in  an  article^  entitled  Shak- 
spere oder  Shakespeare?  but  was  promptly  an- 
swered by  Fritz  Krauss  in  Shakespeare  oder  Shak- 
spere? It  is  noteworthy  that  the  longer  spelling 
Is  more  generally  used  in  Germany  than  in  England 
or  America,  probably  as  a  result  of  Its  adoption  by 
the  Deutsche  Shakespeare-Gesellschaft  as  early  as 
1864. 

Mr.  R.  A.  Douglas  LIthgow  gave  a  very  satis- 
factory treatment  of  the  subject  In  1880-81  In  two 
papers^    on    The    Orthography    of   Shakespeare's 

^  Gegenivart,  XVIl   (281-282)   and   (408-410). 
'^  The  Antiquary,  II  (190-194)  and  III  (17-20). 


The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography    6i 

Name.  He  assumed  that  though  the  spelling  of 
the  name  is  unimportant  in  itself,  anything  con- 
nected with  Shakespeare  is  of  sufficient  interest  to 
justify  any  earnest  attempt  to  throw  light  upon  the 
minutest  detail.  He  cited  the  early  Warwickshire 
variations,  the  evidence  of  the  Stratford  registers, 
the  five  autographs,  and  numerous  contemporary 
documents  and  printed  allusions ;  in  short,  he  made 
the  first  comprehensive  survey  of  the  subject,  and 
decided  with  the  majority. 

In  1880  was  issued  Part  V  of  Contributions  to 
a  Catalogue  of  The  Lenox  Library,  in  which  the 
compiler  drew  up  a  valuable  list  of  the  scholars 
using  each  of  the  more  common  spellings  of  the 
name.  He  found  that  Shakespear  was  used  by 
forty-two,  Shakspere  by  thirty-three  (of  whom  at 
least  four  later  preferred  Shakespeare),  Shak- 
speare  was  used  by  one  hundred  and  eleven,  and 
Shakespeare  by  two  hundred  and  forty-one.  In 
conclusion  he  wrote :  "  it  is  certainly  a  reproach  to 
English-speaking  people  that  they  cannot  agree 
how  to  spell  the  name  of  their  greatest  author. 
Let  the  minorities  yield  to  the  large  majority,  and 
hereafter  all  unite  in  Shakespeare." 

Since  the  days  of  New  Lamps  or  Old?  there 
has  been  comparatively  little  discussion  about  the 


62  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

matter.  Professor  Hiram  Corson,  in  his  useful 
Introduction  to  Shakespeare  (1889),  has  a  note^ 
in  which  he  presents  succinctly  the  arguments  for 
the  usual  form.  Dr.  F.  J.  Furnivall's  paper  of 
1895  for  Shakspere  has  already  been  considered." 
Mr.  Sidney  Lee,  in  his  Life  of  William  Shake- 
speare (1898),  an  expanded  version  of  his  article 
in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  defended 
the  accepted  spelling;  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  men- 
tion that  Mr.  Lee  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  the 
highest  English  authority  at  the  present  moment  in 
matters  Shakespearean. 

Mr.  John  E.  Yerbury  tried  to  stir  up  the  smould- 
ering fires  in  a  letter  to  The  Academy  in  1898,  in 
which,  after  defending  Shakspere  as  the  form^ 
adopted  "with  strong  reason"  by  the  New  Shak- 
spere Society,  he  asked  the  editor  to  throw  open  his 
columns  to  a  "little  discussion  on  the  subject,  so 
that,  if  possible,  we  may  arrive  at  an  accepted  form 
of  spelling  for  the  greatest  name  in  our  or  any 
other  language." 

Apparently  there  was  little  interest  in  this  invi- 
tation to  renew  a  futile  discussion,  as  the  only  pub- 

*  Corson,  pp.  (358-360). 

^  See  p.  21. 

^  The  Academy,  LII,  p.  532. 


'^*     The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography   63 

lished  reply  was  the  Interesting  note  of  Mr.  G.  S. 
Layard^  printed  somewhat  later.  He  wrote :  "  In 
that  very  valuable  little  book  (which  I  fancy  can 
be  had  for  the  asking),  'Rules  for  Compositors 
and  Readers  employed  at  the  Clarendon  Press, 
Oxford,'  compiled  by  Mr.  Horace  Hart,  and  re- 
vised by  Dr.  J.  A.  H.  Murray  and  Mr.  Henry 
Bradley,  we  find  the  following  instruction :  '  Shak- 
spere  is  scholarly,  as — the  New  Shakspere  Society. 
— Dr.  J.  A.  H.  Murray.  ( But  the  Clarendon  Press 
is  already  committed  to  the  more  extended  spelling. 
H.  H.)'  A  sort  of  editorial  carte  and  tierce  that 
reads  somewhat  curiously." 

Dr.  Horace  Howard  Furness,  who  is  devoting 
his  life  to  his  monumental  Variorum  edition,  used 
the  spelling  Shakespeare  from  the  first,  but  not 
until  the  year  1899  in  the  preface  to  Much  Ado 
About  Nothing  did  he  express  a  direct  opinion 
upon  the  question.  In  commenting  on  the  varia- 
tions between  Mr.  Arber's  transcription  of  the  Sta- 
tioners' Registers  and  the  readings  given  by  earlier 
scholars  like  Collier  and  Dyce  he  said  that  these 
differences  are  "  full  of  sad  warning  when  we  ap- 
proach the  awful  problem  of  the  spelling  of  the 
Poet's  name  as  deduced  from  his  written  signature. 

*  The  Academy,  Lll,  p.  563. 


64  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

For  myself,  I  at  once  acknowledge  that  I  prefer  to 
accept  the  spelling,  Shakespeare,  adopted  by  the 
Poet  himself,  and  so  printed  by  his  fellow-towns- 
man, Richard  Field,  In  both  Venus  and  Adonis 
and  in  Lucrece.  This  alone  Is  for  me  quite  suffi- 
cient, and  evidently  his  contemporaries  shared  the 
same  position."^ 

Mr.  Charles  Allen,  in  Notes  on  the  Bacon- 
Shakespeare  Question  (1900),  has  a  chapter  on 
the  want  of  uniformity  In  spelling  the  name,  but 
beyond  declaring  that  most  modern  writers  have 
adopted  the  form  Shakespeare,  he  does  not  discuss 
the  merits  of  that  spelling.  In  Mr,  WiUIam  H. 
Edwards'  Shaksper  not  Shakespeare  (1900)  an 
attempt  is  made  to  show  that  the  Stratford  Shak- 
sper and  the  dramatist  Shakespeare  were  different 
Individuals.  The  idea  was  not  a  new  one,  being 
found  at  least  as  early  as  1887  In  Relchel's  Shake- 
speare Litteratur.  A  German  Baconian,  Count 
Vltzthum  von  Eckstadt,  in  his  Shakespeare  und 
Shaksper e  (1888)  even  insisted  that  the  names 
were  etymologically  distinct;  the  former  being  a 
combination  of  the  words  shake  and  spear,  the 
latter  a  corruption  of  Jacques  Pierre.  Edwin 
Reed,  another  Baconian,  makes  a  similar  dlstlnc- 

^Furness,  Much  Ado  About  Nothing,  p.  xi. 


—^        The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography   65 

tion  in  his  Bacon  vs.  Shakspere  (1897)  ;  Francis 
Bacon,  our  Shakespeare  (1899)  and  Bacon  and 
Shakespeare  Parallelisms,  wherein  Shake-speare  is 
'  simply  regarded  as  a  pseudonym  of  Sir  Francis. 

A  remarkable  coincidence  was  pointed  out^  a 
few  years  ago  by  an  observant  defender  of  the 
form  Shakespear.  A  careful  study  of  this  spelling 
disclosed  the  fact  that  It  contains  four  vowels  and 
six  consonants.  Now  four  and  six  placed  side  by 
side  undoubtedly  make  forty-six.  At  this  crucial 
stage  in  his  calculations  the  enthusiast  was  inspired 
to  turn  to  the  forty-sixth  Psalm  in  the  Authorized 
Version.  He  counted  to  the  forty-sixth  word 
from  the  beginning,  and  stopped  at  shake.  After 
,  recovering  from  his  surprise,  he  started  at  the  end 
and  counted  back  to  the  forty-sixth  word,  only  to 
reach  spear!  Thus  he  not  only  proved  that 
Shakespear  is  the  correct  spelling,  but,  incidentally, 
that  the  poet  translated  the  Book  of  Psalms. 

Very  recently  the  orthography  has  received  due 
consideration  in  Dr.  Rolfe's  Life  of  Shakespeare 
(1904),  in  an  appendix  to  Mr.  F.  St.  John  Cor- 
bett's  History  of  British  Poetry  (1905),  and  in 
the  revised  (fifth)  edition  of  Mr.  Lcc's  Life  of 
Shakespeare  (1905).  All  of  these  express  their 
unqualified  preference  for  the  form  Shakespeare. 

^  Publishers'  Circular,  LXXVI,  p.  30. 


66  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

In  conclusion,  it  should  be  observed  that  at  pres- 
ent the  spelling  Shakspere  is  approved  by  the  Cen- 
tury Dictionary  of  Names,  by  the  editors  of  the 
New  English  Dictionary ,  by  The  Century  Maga- 
zine, The  Nation,^  and  several  less  prominent 
periodicals.  It  is  used  in  the  library  of  Columbia 
University^  and  lilcewise  enjoys  the  approbation  of 
the  English  Department  of  Harvard  University,^ 
though  the  spelling  Shakespeare  has  been  used  by 
the  Harvard  College  Library  for  many  years  and 
represents  the  personal  preference  of  the  librarian, 
Mr.  William  C.  Lane. 

The  form  Shakespeare  has  been  adopted  by  the 
British  Museum,  the  Clarendon  Press,  the  Deutsche 
Shakespeare-Gesellschaft,  the  Library  of  Congress, 
and  the  libraries  of  Yale,  Princeton,  Cornell  and 

^  The  editor  of  The  Nation  kindly  wrote  me  as  follows:  "We 
adopted  the  form  Shakspere  following  Dr.  Furnivall's  stout  con- 
tention for  it.  It  is  the  form  since  adopted  by  the  editor  of  the 
Oxford  English  Dictionary.  Its  chances  of  survival  seem  good, 
even  if  it  do  not  supplant  Shakespeare,  etc.  I  consider  uni- 
formit}^  in  this  case  of  no  importance." 

^The  librarian,  Mr.  James  H.  Canfield,  informs  me  that  this 
spelling  came  down  from  Mr.  Dewey's  administration. 

^  Professor  G.  L.  Kittredge  has  been  good  enough  to  write  that 
Shakspere  "  was  adopted  as  the  official  form  for  the  College  Cata- 
logue, etc.,  more  than  twenty  years  ago,  at  the  instance  of  the  late 
Professor  Child.  I  prefer  that  form  and  think  Shakspere  did. 
Uniformity,  though  desirable,  is  not  very  important." 


'^        The  Controversy   Over  the  Orthography   6j 

the  University  of  Pennsylvania.^  Through  the 
American  Library  Association  this  form  has  be- 
come the  standard  for  almost  every  important 
'  library  in  this  country.  Poole's  Index  to  Period- 
ical Literature,  faithful  to  Shakspere  throughout 
its  first  four  volumes,  became  converted  in  the  fifth 
(1897-1902);  the  more  recent  Annual  Literary 
Index,  Cumulative  Guide  to  Periodicals  and  the 
Reader's  Guide  to  Periodical  Literature  never  used 
any  other  form  than  Shakespeare. 

Briefly  summarizing  the  evidence  brought  to- 
gether in  these  pages,  we  find  that  the  name  occur- 
red originally  in  numerous  variant  forms;  that 
at  Stratford  the  spelling  Shakspere  prevailed  for 
a  time,  though  rarely  after  the  beginning  of  the 
dramatist's  career;  that  the  Stationers'  registers 
and  other  contemporary  documents  present  a  wil- 
derness of  confusing  variations;  that  although 
four  of  the  five  autographs  seem  intended  to  spell 
Shakspere,  the  title-pages  of  the  quartos  and  of 
the  First  Folio  point  more  strongly  to  the  form 
Shakespeare.  If  the  usage  of  later  scholars  and 
critics  is  of  less  weight,  it  is  at  least  noteworthy 

^  Professor  William  II.  Brown  of  Johns  Hopkins  University 
writes  that  they  have  no  "  official  "  spelling  of  the  name,  though 
he  personally  prefers  Shakespeare. 


68  The  Name  of  Shakespeare 

that  the  recent  editors  and  biographers  who  have 
specialized  most  zealously  upon  the  study  of  the 
poet  are  virtually  unanimous  for  the  longer  spelling. 
Although  a  few  scholars  of  recognized  authority 
and  several  highly  esteemed  periodicals  are  still 
unconvinced,  it  must  be  self-evident  that  the  form 
Shakespeare  is  now  so  thoroughly  entrenched,  that, 
with  the  great  bibliographical  forces  of  England 
and  America  arrayed  against  them,  the  adherents 
of  Shakspere  are  clinging  to  a  lost  cause.  How 
long  they  will  delay  the  much-desired  uniformity 
in  spelling  cannot,  of  course,  be  determined. 
Enough  (probably  more  than  enough)  has  been 
written  here  to  point  out  the  true  path ;  let  us  now 
turn  to  fresher  fields  and  more  profitable  pastures. 


Early  Reviews 


OF 


English  Poets 


EDITED   WITH    AN   INTRODUCTION   BY 


JOHN  LOUIS  HANEY,  PKD. 


The  Regular  Edition,  bound  in  red  buckram  cloth, 
gold-stamped,  with  gilt  top,  uncut,  at  $1.20  nnf  (postage 
13  cents). 

The  Library  Edition,  printed  on  superior  laid  paper, 
with  frontispiece  on  Japan  paper,  bound  in  green  boards 
with  paper  labels,  gilt  top,  uncut,  limited  to  three  hundred 
numbered  copies  at  $2.00  «<f/  (postage  16  cents). 


"  It  was  a  happy  thought,  that  of  collecting  in  one  handy  volume  these  selected 
and  important  reviews.  .  .  .  It  is  not  merely  as  a  convenience  to  the  student,  who 
can  have  here  under  his  hand  important  documents  not  otherwise  readily  accessible, 
that  we  welcome  this  volume,  but  as  comprising  an  instructive  and  significant  chapter 
in  English  literature.  .  .  .  The  present  work  is  complemented  by  excellent  notes, 
and  an  introduction  containing  an  interesting  historical  sketch  of  the  English  critical 
journals." — Tke  Nation. 

"  Dr.  John  Louis  Haney  has  performed  a  task  of  considerable  usefulness  to  stu- 
dents of  literary  history.  .  .  .  The  introduction  is  a  valuable  sketch  of  English 
periodical  literature,  bringing  together  many  facts  for  which  we  should  hardly  know 
where  else  to  look." — Tke  Dial. 

"An  entertaining  book  .  .  .  Mr.  Haney's  volume  needs  neither  excuse  nor 
explanation  ;  it  is  surprising  that  such  a  book  has  not  been  written  long  ago.  .  .  . 
Until  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Haney's  book  the  general  conception  of  early  British 
criticism  was  a  vague,  formless  thing.  .  .  .  It  is  an  amusing  and  certainly  an  edi- 
fying book."— John  R.  \ovifG\n  Chicag-o  Evening  Post. 

"An  interesting  and  serviceable  survey  of  the  history  of  English  criticism. 
.     .     .    A  valuable  and  entertaining  collection." 

— Dr.  Richard  Garnbtt  in  The  Speaker. 


THE  EGERTON  PRESS 

934  North  Eleventh  Street  PHILADELPHIA 


A  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

OF 

Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge 

BY 

John  Louis  Haney,  Ph.D» 


This  important  bibliography  was  issued  in  an  edition 
limited  to  300  numbered  copies,  printed  from  type  and 
bound  in  boards  with  paper  labels ;  also,  a  large  paper 
(quarto)  edition  of  30  copies,  numbered  and  signed,  with 
frontispiece  on  Japan  paper.  It  enumerates  all  editions  of 
Coleridge's  works ;  his  contributions  to  other  works  and 
to  periodicals  ;  biographies,  and  editions  of  his  letters ; 
critical  articles,  poetical  tributes,  portraits,  etc. 

Regular  Edition  (300  copies),  $4.00  net  postpaid. 
Large  Paper  Edition  (30  copies),  $10.00;/^/ postpaid. 


"  The  importance  of  Mr.  Haney'sbook  may  be  inferred  from  thefact  that  under 
the  heading  '  Marginalia  '  no  fewer  than  three  hundred  and  forty-one  items  are  col- 
lected, as  against  the  seventy  odd  titles  enumerated  under  that  heading  in  the  British 
Museum  Catalogue — the  only  other  list  of  marginalia  extant.  The  compiler  has 
aimed  at  producing  a  practical  handbook  for  the  literary  worker.  ...  In  Mr. 
Haney's  work  we  recognize  a  worthy  attempt  to  grapple  with  a  laborious  and  some- 
what intricate  task,  which  has  never  yet  been  seriously  taken  in  hand  on  this  side  of 
the  water." — The  Athenceiitn. 

"  In  spite  of  its  compactness,  the  material  collected  makes  a  volume  of  one 
hundred  and  sixty  octavo  pages.  We  do  not  remember  a  more  comprehensive  indi 
vidual  bibliography.  .  .  .  The  items  are  fully  and  systematically  recorded  and  de- 
scribed. The  notes  are  valuable,  giving  the  contents  of  collected  works,  facts  con- 
cerning publication,  and  many  exact  references  to  contemporary  reviews  and  criti- 
cisms of  the  newly  Issued  works.  This  makes  the  list  of  special  use  to  students.  .  .  . 
If  more  of  Coleridge's  valuable  criticisms  can  be  rescued  from  their  pencilled  desue- 
tude for  publication,  Mr.  Haney  will  have  performed  a  double  service  by  his  pains- 
taking and  very  excellent  work." — The  Literary  Collector. 

"  II  n'y  aquedes  eloges  k  donner  i  la  Bibliographic  de  Coleridge  publiee  par 
M.  Haney.  Ce  volume  de  luxe  deviendra  indispensable  d  tous  ceux  qui  voudront 
etudicr  de  pres  Coleridge. — Revue  Germanique. 


THE  EGERTON  PRESS 

934  North  Eleventh  Street  PHILADELPHIA 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


Form  L-0 
aom-l,'41(U22) 


tnsnffMStTY  OF  CAUFORHIE 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 


H19n  The  name  of 

Vrilliam  "Shakes^ 
peare, 


■A 


PR 
2901 

H19n 


UC  SOUTHFRN  RtGinrjAL  LIBRARr  t  ACUITY 


AA    000  369  439    5 


illUiliitmiillilliimiiiiilluUiuiuLlnttilUilllilllilllllimilllillJIIilillllilliiM 


